Continuing Resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2025

I will provide a detailed and authoritative analysis of the differences between the last three proposals of the Continuing Resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2025, based on available information as of March 13, 2025. Given that the federal government is currently operating under a CR extending funding through March 14, 2025, and with recent legislative developments, I will focus on the three most recent CR proposals leading up to and including the latest action taken by Congress. These are:

1. H.R. 9494 – Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act, 2025 (Introduced September 9, 2024)
2. H.R. 10545 – Further Continuing Appropriations and Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Passed December 20, 2024)
3. H.R. 1968 – Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Passed March 11, 2025)

Below, I outline the key differences between these proposals in terms of duration, funding levels, policy riders, and additional provisions, reflecting their legislative intent and outcomes.

1. Duration of Funding

• H.R. 9494 (September 9, 2024)
  • Proposed to extend government funding through March 28, 2025, a six-month CR from the start of FY 2025 (October 1, 2024).
  • This longer duration aimed to push final budget negotiations into the next calendar year and administration, avoiding a lame-duck session showdown.
  • Rejected by the House on September 18, 2024 (202–220 vote), due to partisan disagreements.
• H.R. 10545 (December 20, 2024)
  • Extended funding through March 14, 2025, a shorter three-month extension from the prior CR’s expiration (December 20, 2024).
  • Passed by bipartisan majorities (House: 366–34; Senate: 85–11) and signed into law by President Biden on December 21, 2024, averting a shutdown just after the deadline.
  • This shorter timeframe reflected a compromise to address immediate needs while deferring broader budget decisions.
• H.R. 1968 (March 11, 2025)
  • Extended funding through September 30, 2025, covering the remainder of FY 2025 (a full-year CR).
  • Passed the House by a narrow margin (217–213) on March 11, 2025, with strong Republican support and near-unanimous Democratic opposition, awaiting Senate action as of March 13, 2025.
  • Intended to “freeze” spending levels and provide stability through the fiscal year, aligning with President Trump’s stated goals.

Key Difference: H.R. 9494 proposed a six-month extension, H.R. 10545 a three-month extension, and H.R. 1968 a full-year extension, reflecting shifting strategies from temporary stopgaps to a longer-term resolution.

2. Funding Levels

• H.R. 9494
  • Maintained FY 2024 funding levels for most programs, consistent with standard CR practice.
  • Included minor adjustments (anomalies), such as additional funding for the Department of Defense’s Virginia Class Submarine program and emergency funds for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund.
• H.R. 10545
  • Continued FY 2024 funding levels with no significant changes to base discretionary spending.
  • Added substantial supplemental funding: $110 billion for disaster relief and other priorities (e.g., $29 billion for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund), reflecting urgent needs after natural disasters in late 2024.
  • Did not alter the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) caps of $893 billion for defense and $708 billion for nondefense in FY 2025.
• H.R. 1968
  • Freeze funding at FY 2024 levels through September 30, 2025, with specific adjustments: a limited increase in defense spending and a limited reduction in nondefense spending.
  • Provided the largest pay raise for junior enlisted servicemembers in decades, a targeted anomaly to boost military compensation.
  • Avoided major deviations from FRA caps but did not include the supplemental funding seen in H.R. 10545.

Key Difference: H.R. 9494 offered modest anomalies, H.R. 10545 layered on significant disaster relief funding, and H.R. 1968 focused on a full-year freeze with targeted military pay adjustments, eschewing large supplemental packages.

3. Policy Riders and Additional Provisions

• H.R. 9494
  • Included a controversial voting reform measure (the SAVE Act), requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, which drew opposition from Democrats (seen as disenfranchising) and some Republicans (insufficient spending cuts).
  • Extended several expiring programs, such as the Morris K. Udall Trust Fund, but was laden with partisan riders that doomed its passage.
• H.R. 10545
  • Described as a “Christmas tree bill” due to its extensive bipartisan riders (1,547 pages).
  • Key provisions included:
    • A one-year Farm Bill extension.
    • $10 billion in economic aid for farmers.
    • Restrictions on U.S. capital investment in China.
    • Transfer of RFK Stadium ownership to Washington, D.C.
    • Extensions of healthcare programs (e.g., telehealth waivers, Medicaid DSH relief through September 30, 2025).
    • Pharmacy benefit manager reforms and ticket pricing transparency.
    • A 3.8% congressional pay raise.
  • Omitted earlier proposals like workforce and reentry services, focusing on disaster relief and broadly supported extensions.
• H.R. 1968
  • Marketed as a “clean” CR with no poison pills or unrelated riders, focusing solely on funding continuity.
  • Extended key healthcare provisions (e.g., Medicare telehealth, hospital-at-home, rural ambulance payments through September 30 or October 1, 2025).
  • Avoided contentious policy riders, aligning with a Republican strategy to streamline passage and support President Trump’s agenda without shutdown risks.

Key Difference: H.R. 9494’s partisan SAVE Act sank it, H.R. 10545 packed in bipartisan riders and disaster aid, and H.R. 1968 stripped out most riders for a minimalist, full-year approach.

4. Political Context and Outcome

• H.R. 9494
  • Introduced by Speaker Mike Johnson, it faced resistance from Democrats over voting restrictions and from fiscal hawks over lack of cuts, leading to its rejection.
  • Reflected early GOP efforts to pair funding with policy wins, misjudging bipartisan support.
• H.R. 10545
  • Emerged from bipartisan negotiations after a failed December 2024 CR attempt, balancing disaster relief with broad appeal provisions.
  • Passed under a lame-duck Congress, with President-elect Trump’s informal $2.5 trillion spending cut/$1.5 trillion debt ceiling deal not included, signaling a deferral to 2025.
• H.R. 1968
  • Pushed by a Republican-controlled House under Trump’s influence (endorsed March 5, 2025), aiming to avoid a shutdown before the March 14 deadline.
  • Narrow passage reflected GOP unity (all but one present voted yes) versus Democratic opposition (all but one voted no), with Senate approval pending as of March 13, 2025.

Key Difference: H.R. 9494 failed due to partisan overreach, H.R. 10545 succeeded via compromise, and H.R. 1968 advanced a GOP-driven, Trump-backed minimalist strategy.

Summary of Differences

Conclusion

The progression from H.R. 9494 to H.R. 10545 to H.R. 1968 reflects a shift from ambitious partisan proposals to pragmatic bipartisan stopgaps and finally to a streamlined, full-year Republican-led resolution. H.R. 9494 overreached with voting reforms, H.R. 10545 bridged divides with disaster aid and riders, and H.R. 1968 prioritized simplicity and military support under Trump’s guidance.  I note that these CRs navigate the FRA’s spending caps and constitutional funding obligations, with H.R. 1968’s fate in the Senate critical to avoiding a shutdown by tomorrow, March 14, 2025.