The funding is treated as having begun on October 1, 2025
What the document says“Notwithstanding section 106(1), for the purposes of divisions A through D of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, the time covered by such divisions shall be considered to have begun on October 1, 2025.”
Section 119 of division A backdates the funding period to the first day of the fiscal year, which is why the Act can reach the lapse that ran from October 1, 2025 to the day it was signed.
What the document actually says“Notwithstanding section 106(1), for the purposes of divisions A through D of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, the time covered by such divisions shall be considered to have begun on October 1, 2025.”
This money counts as if it started on October 1, 2025.
The law was signed in November. The budget year began in October. This closes that gap by reaching back.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.