Passed
217 Yea213 Nay2 Not voting1/2 required
HR-1968-119
Became Public Law No: 119-4.
Sponsored by Tom Cole (R-OK)
What it does
This law funds the entire federal government through September 30, 2025, by continuing spending at fiscal year 2024 levels with specific adjustments for individual agencies and programs. It extends a wide range of health programs — including Medicare telehealth flexibilities, community health centers, and Medicaid payments — and adds provisions on cybersecurity, drone security, fentanyl scheduling, and commodity futures whistleblower protections. It also provides $8 billion in additional flexible funding for U.S. military operations under Central and European Command.
Who benefits
All Americans who rely on federally funded services, since the law prevents a government shutdown. Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries whose payment programs are extended. Rural communities receiving continued broadband, telemedicine, and water infrastructure funding. Low-income women, infants, and children covered by WIC ($7.6 billion). Veterans receiving healthcare through the VA. Active-duty military personnel and reservists whose pay and operations are funded. Defense contractors and shipbuilders receiving continued procurement funding. Community health centers and rural hospitals receiving extended payment adjustments. Low-income Medicare enrollees benefiting from outreach and assistance program extensions. Disabled coal miners receiving advance benefit payments.
Who is hurt
Agencies and programs whose funding is reduced below FY2024 levels by specific line-item adjustments — for example, the Pell Grant program (reduced from $14.2B to $13.1B) and certain State Department foreign operations accounts. Programs whose FY2024 earmarks are explicitly voided, losing directed funding. Entities that had expected new appropriations rather than a continuation of prior-year levels. Taxpayers and deficit hawks who argue that a full-year CR avoids the discipline of a regular appropriations process. Defense programs subject to rescissions totaling over $1.3 billion. Contractors and grantees dependent on programs zeroed out or reduced in specific line items.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this law was essential to prevent a government shutdown that would have disrupted federal services for hundreds of millions of Americans, halted pay for federal workers and military personnel, and destabilized financial markets. They contend that continuing FY2024 funding levels provides stability and predictability for agencies, contractors, and benefit recipients while Congress works toward a full-year budget, and that the targeted adjustments — including $8 billion for military readiness and extended Medicare and Medicaid provisions — reflect genuine policy priorities rather than a blank rollover.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that full-year continuing resolutions represent a failure of the congressional appropriations process, locking in prior-year spending levels without the rigorous line-by-line review that annual appropriations are supposed to provide. They contend that governing by CR for an entire fiscal year cedes Congress's core power of the purse to inertia, prevents agencies from planning effectively, and — as the Congressional Budget Office has noted in prior analyses — can result in both wasteful spending in some accounts and harmful underfunding in others relative to actual current needs.
Constitutional context
The Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) gives Congress exclusive authority to appropriate federal funds, and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) authorizes spending for the general welfare. This law is a straightforward exercise of that core congressional power. The $8 billion flexible transfer authority for military operations touches on the separation of powers between Congress and the Executive over war powers and military spending, but no active constitutional litigation directly challenges this mechanism.
Checks and balances
Congress retains the power of the purse through this appropriation; the Executive Branch gains operational flexibility through the $8 billion military transfer authority, but that authority is checked by a mandatory 30-day execution plan submission and 15-day advance notification requirements to congressional defense committees before any transfer.
Historical precedent
Congress has passed full-year continuing resolutions before, most notably in FY2011 and FY2013, when regular appropriations bills also failed to pass before the fiscal year deadline.
Passed