Continuing Resolution History

A Continuing Resolution (CR) is a vital tool used by the U.S. federal government to ensure the uninterrupted operation of government agencies and programs when regular appropriations legislation has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. This article delves into the history of Continuing Resolutions, exploring their purpose, impact, and the circumstances that have led to their implementation.

The Role and Significance of Continuing Resolutions

Continuing Resolutions are temporary measures designed to fund the federal government in the absence of approved full-year appropriations bills. These resolutions typically provide funding at the previous year’s levels, ensuring that government operations can continue without disruption while Congress works towards passing the necessary funding legislation.

The use of CRs is not a new phenomenon. It has been a common practice for decades, with the first CR being enacted in the early 1970s. Since then, CRs have become an integral part of the federal budgeting process, reflecting the complexities and challenges associated with negotiating and passing comprehensive appropriations bills.

The Evolution of CRs Over Time

The history of Continuing Resolutions is marked by a series of significant milestones and changing dynamics within the legislative process. Here’s a chronological overview of key events and trends:

1974: The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act

This landmark legislation introduced a more structured and organized budgeting process, including the establishment of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). While it did not directly address CRs, it set the stage for more comprehensive budgeting practices.

1980s: The Rise of Continuing Resolutions

During this decade, CRs became increasingly common as political polarization and ideological differences between the executive and legislative branches intensified. The Reagan administration, in particular, faced challenges in securing full-year appropriations bills, leading to a rise in the use of CRs to keep the government operational.

1990s: The Shutdown Era

The 1990s witnessed several government shutdowns, primarily due to disputes over budget and policy issues. These shutdowns underscored the importance of CRs as a stopgap measure to prevent complete government shutdowns and the disruption of essential services.

2000s: A Decade of Continued CR Use

The early 2000s saw a continuation of CRs as a common budgeting tool. While there were efforts to reduce their frequency, the complexity of modern government and the growing size of the federal budget made it challenging to pass comprehensive appropriations bills on time.

2010s: Shutdowns and CR Negotiations

The 2010s brought a series of high-profile government shutdowns and intense negotiations surrounding CRs. These events highlighted the political dynamics and the challenges of reaching consensus on federal spending and policy issues.

2020s: A New Era of CR Challenges

The 2020s have presented unique challenges with the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the federal budget. The need for rapid and flexible funding responses has led to an increased reliance on CRs to ensure the continuity of government operations while addressing emerging needs.

The Impact and Implications of CRs

Continuing Resolutions have both short-term and long-term impacts on the federal government and its operations. While they provide essential funding stability, they also come with certain drawbacks and challenges.

Pros of CRs

• Continuity of Operations: CRs ensure that federal agencies can continue their critical functions without interruption, maintaining public services and national security.
• Flexibility: They provide a certain level of flexibility, allowing agencies to respond to changing circumstances and emerging needs.
• Time for Negotiations: CRs buy time for Congress and the administration to negotiate and pass full-year appropriations bills, addressing budget and policy priorities.

Cons of CRs

• Funding Uncertainty: CRs often provide funding at the previous year’s levels, which may not accurately reflect the current needs and priorities of agencies.
• Programmatic Disruptions: Long-term CRs can hinder the implementation of new initiatives and programs, affecting the government’s ability to adapt to evolving challenges.
• Inhibited Planning: Agencies face difficulties in long-term planning and strategic decision-making when operating under CRs, as funding levels and priorities remain uncertain.

The Future of Continuing Resolutions

The continued reliance on CRs reflects the complexities of the federal budgeting process and the challenges of reaching consensus on spending and policy issues. While efforts to reduce their frequency and duration have been made, the political landscape and the ever-changing nature of government priorities make it difficult to predict a significant reduction in their use.

As the federal government navigates an increasingly complex and dynamic landscape, the role of CRs will likely remain crucial in ensuring the continuity of operations and services. However, a long-term solution to minimize their impact and foster a more efficient budgeting process is an ongoing area of focus for policymakers and budget experts.