Continuing Appropriations and Extensions and Other Matters Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3]
- Committees
- Budget Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 18, 2025
Bottom line
This bill is a short-term continuing resolution that funds the government for a month while also enacting several major policy changes and program extensions.
What it actually does
This bill provides continuing appropriations for the federal government for fiscal year 2026, generally at fiscal year 2025 levels, through October 31, 2025, to prevent a government shutdown. Beyond standard funding, it includes numerous extensions for health, veterans, and miscellaneous programs, alongside significant policy riders that alter federal budget processes, establish a new Inspector General for the Office of Management and Budget, and permanently extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is essential to avoid a government shutdown, ensuring critical federal operations and services continue without interruption. They would highlight the extensions of vital health, veterans, and other programs, as well as the permanent enhancement of health insurance tax credits, as crucial for stability and affordability for millions of Americans. The budget process reforms are framed as improving congressional oversight and preventing executive overreach.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that relying on short-term continuing resolutions is a poor way to govern, hindering long-term planning and efficient agency operations. They may criticize the inclusion of significant, unrelated policy riders in a must-pass funding bill, arguing that these provisions circumvent regular order and prevent proper debate and scrutiny. Concerns might also be raised about the fiscal impact of new spending and tax credit extensions, especially given the changes to budget enforcement rules.
This bill is highly complex and lengthy, requiring significant time to understand its numerous provisions and their implications. The short timeframe between its introduction and the fiscal year deadline means that the public and even many lawmakers will have very limited time for thorough review.
Division A, Sec. 101, 106
General Continuing Appropriations
This provision provides funding for most federal government operations for fiscal year 2026 at the fiscal year 2025 rate of operations. This funding is temporary, lasting until October 31, 2025, or until a full-year appropriation bill is enacted, whichever comes first. It ensures that federal agencies can continue their ongoing projects and activities without interruption.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is critical to prevent a government shutdown, maintaining essential services and providing stability for federal workers and the public.
Critics contend
Critics contend that continuing resolutions are an inefficient way to fund the government, hindering long-term planning and potentially leading to wasteful spending compared to regular appropriations.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between avoiding a shutdown (stability) and the inefficiencies and lack of strategic planning inherent in short-term funding measures.
Division A, Sec. 116
Changes to Emergency Spending Designations
This section amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to remove the requirement that the President 'subsequently so designates' an amount as an emergency requirement for it to be treated as such. This change means that if Congress designates an amount as an emergency, it will be treated as such for budget purposes without requiring a separate presidential designation.
Division A, Sec. 118
Extension and Exemption of Unobligated Balances
This provision extends the availability of certain unobligated balances from prior appropriations and other acts until September 30, 2026. These balances must have been subject to apportionment, not made available for immediate obligation 90 days prior to their expiration, and not available after September 30, 2025. Crucially, these extended funds are made exempt from apportionment rules, meaning the Office of Management and Budget cannot withhold them.
Division A, Sec. 119
Impoundment Control Act Modifications
This section significantly modifies the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It nullifies a subsection related to rescission messages and mandates that budget authority proposed for rescission or deferral must be made available for obligation in sufficient time and cannot be withheld during the 90-day period before its expiration. It also requires appropriations to be apportioned to make all amounts available for immediate obligation, without precondition, not later than 90 days before expiration.
Division A, Sec. 120
WIC Program Funding Increase
This section provides specific funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) at a rate for operations of $8,200,000,000. This is a specific increase above the general continuing resolution rate, ensuring robust funding for this vital nutrition program.
Division A, Sec. 128, 129, 144, 145, 160
Emergency Funding for Judicial and Congressional Security
These sections appropriate additional emergency funds for various security needs. This includes $30,000,000 for the U.S. Marshals Service for protective operations and judicial security, $30,000,000 for courthouse security renovations, $28,000,000 for Supreme Court Justices' residence protection, $52,000,000 for courthouse security improvements, and $186,500,000 for enhanced Member security programs for the House and Senate, and Capitol Police mutual aid reimbursements. These amounts are designated as emergency requirements.
Division A, Sec. 131
Navy Shipbuilding (Virginia Class Submarine)
This provision allows the Department of Defense to apportion up to $154,000,000 for 'Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy' to fund the completion of prior year shipbuilding programs, specifically for the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2018 Virginia Class Submarine Programs. This is an exception to the general limitations on new production or increased rates under the continuing resolution.
Division A, Sec. 132
Air Force E-7 Wedgetail Program
This section provides $199,676,000 for the E-7 Wedgetail program for continued rapid prototyping and transition to production, overriding general CR limitations. It also transfers $200,000,000 from prior year 'Aircraft Procurement, Air Force' funds to the E-7 program for the same purpose. A key directive prohibits using any funds to pause, cancel, or terminate the E-7 program.
Division A, Sec. 143
Establishment of OMB Inspector General
This section establishes an Office of Inspector General (OIG) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and mandates the President to appoint an Inspector General within 45 days. The OIG will have jurisdiction over matters specifically assigned or delegated to OMB. It also appropriates $20,000,000 for the OIG for fiscal year 2026, and exempts these funds from apportionment, meaning OMB cannot withhold them.
Division A, Sec. 159
No Congressional COLA
This provision prohibits any cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Members of Congress during the period covered by this Act. This means congressional salaries will not increase based on inflation during this time.
Division B, Title I, Subtitle A
Public Health Program Extenders
This subtitle extends funding and authorities for several critical public health programs through October 31, 2025. Key programs include Community Health Centers, the National Health Service Corps, Teaching Health Centers that operate Graduate Medical Education programs, and Special Diabetes Programs (Type I and for Indians). These extensions ensure continuity of services and support for healthcare providers and patients.
Division B, Title I, Subtitle B
Medicare Program Extenders
This subtitle extends several Medicare provisions through October 31 or November 1, 2025. These include increased inpatient hospital payment adjustments for low-volume hospitals, the Medicare-Dependent Hospital (MDH) program, add-on payments for ambulance services, funding for quality measure endorsement, and various telehealth flexibilities (e.g., removing geographic requirements, expanding eligible practitioners, allowing audio-only services). It also delays in-person requirements for mental health services furnished via telehealth.
Division B, Sec. 2120
Medicare Improvement Fund Reduction
This section amends the Social Security Act to reduce the amount available in the Medicare Improvement Fund from $1,804,000,000 to $1,033,000,000. This represents a reduction of $771,000,000 from the fund, which is typically used for improvements to the Medicare program.
Division B, Sec. 2131
Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Allotments
This section extends the DSH allotment for Tennessee through October 31, 2025, providing $4,509,863 for that period. More significantly, it delays scheduled Medicaid DSH reductions, which were set to begin in fiscal year 2026, until November 1, 2025. This means the reductions will not apply for the first month of FY2026.
Division B, Sec. 2141
Repeal of Health Subtitle Changes
This section repeals Subtitle B of Title VII of Public Law 119-21, an Act titled 'An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14.' Any laws or regulations referred to in that subtitle will be applied as if those changes had never been enacted. This effectively reverses prior legislative changes related to health policy.
Division B, Sec. 2142
Permanent Extension of Enhanced Affordable Care Act Tax Credit
This section permanently extends the enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by removing the 400 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) income cap for eligibility and adjusting the applicable percentages used to calculate the credits. This means more individuals will be eligible for subsidies, and those already receiving them will likely see increased financial assistance for health insurance premiums, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Division B, Title II
Veterans Affairs Program Extenders
This title extends various programs and authorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through October 31, 2025. These include requirements for nursing home care, authority for veteran transportation, funding for supportive services for homeless veterans, the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program, the regional office in the Philippines, educational assistance entitlements, treatment for seriously mentally ill and homeless veterans, copayment collection, rural access networks, specially adapted housing assistance, and the Inspector General's subpoena authority.
Division B, Title III
Miscellaneous Program Extenders
This title extends several miscellaneous federal programs and authorities through October 31, 2025. These include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Whistleblower Program, Forest Service participation in the ACES Program, the Food for Peace Act, the United States Grain Standards Act, the Defense Production Act of 1950, alternative fuel vehicles in HOV lanes, eligibility for certain TIFIA projects, protection of facilities from unmanned aircraft, National Cybersecurity Protection System authorization, State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program, Cybersecurity Information Sharing, an additional special assessment, and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation reauthorization.
Division B, Sec. 2401
Budgetary Effects (PAYGO Exemptions)
This section exempts the budgetary effects of Division B (Extensions and Other Matters) from Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) scorecards, Senate PAYGO scorecards, and other budget enforcement mechanisms. This means that the spending increases or revenue losses from the provisions in Division B, such as the permanent extension of ACA tax credits, will not trigger automatic cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by striking 'and the President subsequently so designates' each place it appears in relation to emergency requirements. This effectively removes the President's ability to deny an emergency designation made by Congress.
Division A, Sec. 116
Why it matters:This is a significant shift in power over emergency spending designations from the Executive to the Legislative Branch. It's technically phrased to modify existing law rather than creating a new, easily understandable policy, which can obscure its impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this restores Congress's constitutional power of the purse, preventing the executive branch from unilaterally blocking congressionally approved emergency spending. It ensures that funds designated by Congress for emergencies are treated as such without further executive approval.
Case against: Critics contend this could undermine executive branch fiscal discipline and lead to an increase in spending designated as 'emergency' without sufficient checks. They might argue the President's role in designating emergencies is a necessary safeguard against excessive spending.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in future emergency spending could be affected by this change in designation authority, as it removes a check on congressional spending.
This section nullifies subsection (d) of section 1017 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and imposes new requirements. It mandates that budget authority proposed for rescission or deferral must be made available for obligation in sufficient time and cannot be deferred or withheld during the 90-day period before its expiration. It also requires appropriations to be apportioned to make all amounts available for immediate obligation, without precondition, not later than 90 days before the expiration of the period of availability.
Division A, Sec. 119
Why it matters:This provision fundamentally alters the executive branch's ability to manage or withhold congressionally appropriated funds. Its technical nature allows for significant policy changes regarding the balance of power between Congress and the President without drawing immediate public attention to the magnitude of the shift.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that funds appropriated by Congress are actually spent as intended, preventing the executive branch from effectively impounding funds through delayed apportionment or deferrals. It strengthens Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
Case against: Critics may argue that these modifications strip the executive branch of necessary tools for fiscal management and could lead to inefficient spending by forcing the obligation of funds that might be better deferred or rescinded. They might also raise concerns about the practical challenges of such strict apportionment deadlines.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts the obligation of billions of dollars in federal funds annually, significantly limiting the executive branch's discretion over spending execution.
Establishes an Office of Inspector General (OIG) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), mandates presidential appointment of an IG within 45 days, and appropriates $20,000,000 for its expenses, explicitly exempting these funds from apportionment.
Division A, Sec. 143
Why it matters:Establishing an OIG for OMB is a significant policy decision that could be controversial due to its implications for executive power and internal oversight. Burying it in a CR, along with the apportionment exemption, helps ensure its passage and operational independence by limiting executive control over its funding.
Case for: Proponents argue that an OIG at OMB is essential for transparency and accountability, ensuring that the powerful agency responsible for federal budgeting and management is subject to independent oversight, preventing waste, fraud, and abuse.
Case against: Opponents might argue that an OIG at OMB could politicize or impede the agency's critical functions, creating an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy or undermining the President's ability to manage the executive branch effectively.
Estimated impact: Establishes a new permanent federal office with an initial appropriation of $20,000,000, significantly altering the oversight landscape of the executive branch's central management agency.
Permanently extends the enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by removing the 400 percent of FPL income cap for eligibility and adjusting the applicable percentages used to calculate the credits, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Division B, Sec. 2142
Why it matters:The permanent extension of enhanced ACA tax credits represents a major, long-term federal spending commitment. Including it in a CR ensures its passage alongside essential government funding, bypassing the more rigorous and potentially contentious legislative process a standalone bill might face.
Case for: Proponents argue this permanent extension is crucial for making health insurance affordable and accessible to millions of Americans, reducing the number of uninsured, and providing financial relief to middle-income families struggling with healthcare costs.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this provision represents a massive, permanent expansion of federal spending and government intervention in healthcare, contributing significantly to the national debt. They might also contend it distorts the insurance market or that other reforms are more effective.
Estimated impact: This provision is expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, representing a significant, permanent increase in federal outlays.
Exempts the budgetary effects of Division B (Extensions and Other Matters) from Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) scorecards, Senate PAYGO scorecards, and other budget enforcement mechanisms.
Division B, Sec. 2401
Why it matters:This provision is a critical procedural maneuver that allows the bill to include significant spending increases and tax credit extensions (like the ACA subsidies) without requiring offsets under current budget rules. Its placement at the end of the bill, and its technical nature, make it less visible to the public, despite its profound fiscal implications.
Case for: Proponents argue that these exemptions are necessary to pass critical policy priorities, such as the enhanced ACA tax credits, which they deem essential for public welfare, without being constrained by rigid budget rules that might force cuts to other vital programs.
Case against: Opponents would argue that these exemptions undermine fiscal responsibility and contribute to the national debt by allowing significant spending and tax cuts to proceed without being paid for. They contend that such maneuvers erode budget enforcement mechanisms.
Estimated impact: Enables potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and tax credits in Division B to be enacted without being offset, thereby increasing the federal deficit.