House Committee Examines Options to End Government Shutdown Cycle

Why It Matters

The House Appropriations Committee held a hearing on July 22 examining proposals to prevent recurring government shutdowns, marking the committee's first full-committee hearing on the issue in nearly two decades. The hearing featured competing proposals to reform the federal budget process, with lawmakers debating whether automatic continuing resolutions or expedited legislative procedures offer the best path forward. The Trump administration has also stated its opposition to government shutdowns, arguing they harm American families.

The Big Picture

The hearing came as lawmakers continued grappling with the aftermath of the government funding lapse that began at the start of fiscal year 2026. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the shutdown lasted from Oct. 1 through Nov. 12, 2025, making it the longest federal government shutdown in modern history.

The hearing marked a notable milestone. The House Appropriations Committee has not held a full committee hearing dedicated to shutdown reform since 2008. Lawmakers again debated familiar proposals, including automatic continuing resolutions, the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act and expedited appropriations procedures, highlighting longstanding disagreements over how to reform the budget process.

Recent reporting underscored the urgency. Roll Call reported on July 22 that appropriators were "pondering alternatives to annual shutdown threats." NPR reported lawmakers hope to avoid a third shutdown since September 2025. RedState reported on July 23 that the White House urged Congress to keep the government open and opposed shutdowns that harm American families.

What they're saying

Witnesses and lawmakers outlined two competing approaches to preventing future shutdowns.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the lead sponsor of the bipartisan Prevent Government Shutdowns Act, argued for automatic funding safeguards. His legislation would establish rolling 14-day continuing resolutions at the most recently enacted funding levels if Congress fails to complete appropriations before the deadline. Lankford said, "Americans are tired of government shutdown drama and Congress using federal workers and government services as pawns in political standoffs."

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) proposed a different approach. His H.R. 8380 would provide expedited Senate consideration for full-year appropriations bills, similar to the fast-track procedures used for budget reconciliation legislation.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, argued that Congress should preserve its constitutional power of the purse. She cited Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which provides that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." She also quoted James Madison, who wrote that the appropriations power "may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon" available to the people's representatives. DeLauro argued the appropriations process "requires genuine bipartisan compromise," with agreement among the House, Senate, Democrats and Republicans.

Shalanda Young, former director of the Office of Management and Budget and now a resident scholar at New York University School of Law, testified about her experience overseeing the federal budget and managing previous shutdown negotiations. Drawing on her experience administering roughly $7 trillion in annual federal spending, she discussed the operational and fiscal consequences of funding lapses.

Committee Chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) noted that the hearing itself was unusual because it was held before the full committee rather than a subcommittee. He also emphasized that all 12 fiscal 2027 appropriations bills had been reported out of committee before the end of June, arguing that the committee had fulfilled its responsibilities under the regular appropriations process. Cole also noted that he and McClintock had served together on the House Budget Committee for many years.

Political Stakes

The debate extends beyond congressional procedure. Federal employee organizations argued that shutdowns impose significant hardship on government workers. The American Federation of Government Employees stated that shutdowns leave federal workers "wondering whether they will be able to pay their mortgage or buy groceries while Congress fails to act." The AFL-CIO similarly argued that federal employees, service members and many federal contractors can go without pay during funding lapses.

A 2025 SHRM survey found that 76% of workers expected increased stress, 76% anticipated declining morale and 75% expected reduced focus and productivity if another shutdown occurred.

Lankford's legislation has attracted bipartisan support from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Barrasso (R-WY), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Rick Scott (R-FL), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Fetterman (D-PA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).

Young's experience overseeing prior shutdowns also gave additional credibility to proposals aimed at reforming the appropriations process.

The Other Side

Not all conservatives support automatic continuing resolutions, arguing they could reduce pressure on Congress to complete annual appropriations bills and weaken lawmakers' leverage during budget negotiations.

What's next

No legislation resulted directly from the July 22 hearing. However, lawmakers indicated shutdown reform is likely to remain part of broader budget process discussions as Congress considers future appropriations legislation.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has described the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act as "a commonsense reform that would help fix a broken budget process by automatically maintaining funding when appropriations deadlines are missed."

The bottom line

The hearing demonstrated renewed bipartisan interest in ending the recurring cycle of government shutdowns, but lawmakers remain divided over how to achieve that goal. While Congress broadly agrees the current process is broken, significant differences remain over whether automatic funding mechanisms or procedural reforms offer the better long-term solution.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article