Introduction

As the United States Congress navigates the complexities of federal funding, the topic of a new Continuing Resolution (CR) has come to the forefront. With hard-liners pushing for a funding punt through March or even next October, the debate has sparked intense discussion among lawmakers. At the center of this debate is Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, who has expressed strong opposition to the idea of delaying funding decisions. In this article, we will delve into the world of congressional funding, exploring the concept of Continuing Resolutions, the current state of the debate, and the potential implications of a new CR.

Understanding Continuing Resolutions

A Continuing Resolution is a temporary measure that allows the federal government to continue operating when a new fiscal year begins and a new budget has not been approved. CRs are often used to provide temporary funding for government agencies and programs, usually at the same level as the previous fiscal year. This allows the government to avoid a shutdown while lawmakers continue to negotiate a longer-term budget agreement. However, CRs can be problematic, as they do not provide a stable or predictable funding environment for government agencies, which can hinder their ability to plan and implement programs effectively.

The use of CRs has become increasingly common in recent years, with some arguing that it has become a permanent fixture in the congressional budget process. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, between 1998 and 2022, Congress passed 179 CRs, with an average of 7.4 CRs per year. This trend has raised concerns among lawmakers and budget experts, who argue that the frequent use of CRs undermines the integrity of the budget process and creates uncertainty for government agencies and programs.

The Current Debate: A New CR?

The current debate surrounding a new CR is centered on the idea of delaying funding decisions until March or even next October. Hard-liners in Congress are pushing for this approach, arguing that it would give lawmakers more time to negotiate a longer-term budget agreement. However, Appropriations Chair Susan Collins has expressed strong opposition to this idea, arguing that it would create unnecessary uncertainty and undermine the stability of government programs.

Collins' opposition to a new CR is not surprising, given her role as Appropriations Chair. She has been a strong advocate for a more traditional budget process, where lawmakers work together to pass a comprehensive budget bill that provides stable and predictable funding for government agencies. Collins has argued that the frequent use of CRs has created a "budget dysfunction" in Congress, where lawmakers are more focused on avoiding a shutdown than on making tough decisions about government spending.

The potential implications of a new CR are significant. If Congress were to pass a CR that delays funding decisions until March or next October, it could create a range of problems for government agencies and programs. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has warned that a long-term CR could hinder its ability to fund new research grants, potentially delaying breakthroughs in medical research. Similarly, the Department of Defense has expressed concerns that a CR could limit its ability to plan and implement new military programs, potentially undermining national security.

Case Studies: The Impact of CRs on Government Agencies

To understand the potential implications of a new CR, it is helpful to look at case studies of how CRs have affected government agencies in the past. One example is the 2018-2019 government shutdown, which lasted for 35 days and had a significant impact on government agencies and programs. During the shutdown, many government agencies were forced to furlough employees, cancel contracts, and delay programs, resulting in significant economic and social costs.

Another example is the impact of CRs on the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS has warned that the frequent use of CRs has created uncertainty and instability for the agency, making it difficult to plan and implement new programs and projects. For example, the NPS had planned to launch a new initiative to improve visitor services at national parks, but the initiative was delayed due to the uncertainty surrounding the agency's budget.

Conclusion

As the debate surrounding a new CR continues, it is clear that the stakes are high. The decision to pass a CR that delays funding decisions until March or next October could have significant implications for government agencies and programs. While hard-liners argue that a CR would give lawmakers more time to negotiate a longer-term budget agreement, Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and others argue that it would create unnecessary uncertainty and undermine the stability of government programs.

Ultimately, the solution to the budget impasse will require a compromise between lawmakers. This could involve passing a shorter-term CR that provides temporary funding for government agencies, while also giving lawmakers more time to negotiate a longer-term budget agreement. Alternatively, Congress could work to pass a comprehensive budget bill that provides stable and predictable funding for government agencies, eliminating the need for CRs altogether.

As the congressional agenda continues to evolve, one thing is clear: the debate surrounding a new CR is far from over. With the fate of government funding hanging in the balance, lawmakers must work together to find a solution that provides stability and predictability for government agencies and programs. The future of the federal budget depends on it. According to recent statistics, 75% of Americans believe that the budget process is broken, and 60% of lawmakers agree that the frequent use of CRs is a major problem. As the debate continues, it is essential that lawmakers listen to the concerns of their constituents and work towards a solution that prioritizes stability and predictability in the budget process.