HR-8206-119
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Chip Roy (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would provide a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the Department of Homeland Security and potentially other federal agencies at existing spending levels for a temporary period in fiscal year 2026. Continuing resolutions maintain current government operations when a full-year appropriations bill has not been enacted. The bill was referred to both the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee, indicating it may also include budget process provisions.
Who benefits
Federal employees and contractors at DHS and other covered agencies who would continue to receive pay and funding. Recipients of DHS-administered programs (including FEMA disaster relief, TSA airport security, Coast Guard operations, and immigration enforcement). State and local governments that receive DHS grants. Businesses and travelers who depend on continuity of border, customs, and transportation security operations.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who prefer a full-year budget over stopgap measures, as CRs are widely documented to reduce agency efficiency and increase administrative costs. Agencies and programs that had been slated for funding increases under a full-year bill, since CRs typically freeze spending at prior-year levels. Contractors and vendors whose new contracts cannot be initiated under a CR. Congress's own appropriations process, as CRs can delay or displace regular order budgeting.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a continuing resolution is a necessary stopgap to prevent a government shutdown and maintain uninterrupted DHS operations — including border security, disaster response, and aviation safety — while Congress works toward a full-year funding agreement. They contend that the costs of a shutdown, including furloughed personnel and suspended services, far outweigh the inefficiencies of temporary funding.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that continuing resolutions represent a failure of the regular appropriations process and lock agencies into outdated spending levels that do not reflect current priorities or needs. They contend that repeated use of CRs undermines congressional oversight of the executive branch, reduces budget transparency, and imposes real operational costs on agencies — including the inability to start new programs or adjust to changing circumstances.