Prevent Government Shutdowns Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
- Last action
- Jun 1, 2026
Bottom line
The Prevent Government Shutdowns Act aims to eliminate disruptive government shutdowns by automating temporary funding and creating procedural and personal pressure on Congress to pass full-year appropriations on time.
What it actually does
This bill establishes an automatic 14-day continuing appropriations mechanism that activates during a lapse in funding, ensuring federal government operations do not cease. It also imposes strict limitations on official travel for federal officers and employees, including Members of Congress, and restricts legislative activity in both chambers to appropriations bills and other critical matters during such funding lapses.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill would end the cycle of disruptive government shutdowns, ensuring essential federal services continue uninterrupted and preventing economic uncertainty. They contend it incentivizes Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to pass appropriations bills by making legislative inaction politically and procedurally uncomfortable, thereby promoting stability and fiscal responsibility.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that automatic continuing resolutions diminish Congress's power of the purse by removing the urgency to negotiate and pass full appropriations, potentially leading to prolonged reliance on stopgap funding. Some may also view the travel and legislative restrictions as an overreach that could hinder legitimate congressional functions or as an ineffective punitive measure.
The bill is relatively short and its core mechanisms are clearly articulated, making it accessible for a quick but informed evaluation by a reader.
Section 2, amending 31 U.S.C. chapter 13 by adding section 1311.
Establishes Automatic Continuing Appropriations
If Congress fails to enact full-year appropriations by the start of a fiscal year, this provision automatically provides 14-day continuing appropriations for federal programs that were funded in the previous year. These 14-day periods automatically extend if a funding lapse continues, ensuring government operations do not cease. Funding is provided at the rate of the preceding applicable appropriation act, with specific provisions for entitlements and mandatory payments to maintain current program levels.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision prevents the significant economic and social disruption caused by government shutdowns, maintaining essential services and ensuring federal employees are paid. They emphasize that it provides crucial stability to government operations.
Critics contend
Some opponents might argue that by removing the immediate threat of a shutdown, this provision reduces the incentive for Congress to engage in serious negotiations and pass full appropriations bills, potentially leading to a perpetual state of continuing resolutions.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for government stability and uninterrupted services against concerns about weakening Congress's power of the purse and potentially encouraging legislative inaction on full appropriations.
Section 3(b)(1)
Restricts Official Travel for Covered Officers and Employees During Lapses
During a period of automatic continuing appropriations, federal officers and employees, including Members of Congress and their staff, are prohibited from obligating or expending funds for official travel. Exceptions are made for travel to return to the seat of Government, travel within the National Capital Region, and travel directly related to national security events that trigger continuity protocols.
Section 3(b)(2), amending 52 U.S.C. 30114.
Prohibits Campaign Funds for Official Travel During Lapses
This section amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to explicitly prohibit the use of campaign contributions or donations for official travel by federal officeholders during a period of automatic continuing appropriations. An exception is provided for travel by an individual to return to the seat of Government if they are away when the covered period begins.
Section 3(c)
Imposes Procedural Restrictions in Congress During Lapses
During a period of automatic continuing appropriations, the Senate and House of Representatives are restricted to considering only appropriations measures, debt limit bills, motions related to quorum, and, after 30 days, certain high-level nominations (Cabinet, Supreme Court) or expiring program authorizations. Neither chamber can recess or adjourn for more than 23 hours, and a quorum call is mandated daily. These restrictions can only be waived by a two-thirds supermajority vote for a period not exceeding 7 days.
Section 4
Defines Budgetary Treatment of Automatic Continuing Appropriations
This section classifies the budgetary effects of the Act and its amendments as discretionary appropriations for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. It specifies that automatic continuing appropriations are considered 'continuing appropriations in effect for less than the entire current year' for baseline calculations and 'part-year appropriations' for enforcing discretionary spending limits. It also adjusts the due date for certain budget reports during a lapse.
This subsection defines the 'covered period' for the legislative branch, specifying that it does not include periods when general appropriation Acts have passed both chambers and are awaiting presidential action, but it does include periods after a presidential veto or if a bill fails to become law without the President's signature.
Section 3(a)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This precise definition is necessary to clarify the exact timing and conditions under which the procedural restrictions on the legislative branch apply, ensuring fairness and proper application of the rules rather than being evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue this nuance is essential to ensure that the legislative restrictions only apply when Congress genuinely has not completed its work, not when the legislative process is complete and the ball is in the President's court. This prevents unfairly penalizing Congress for executive action.
Case against: Critics might argue that this carve-out still allows for periods of legislative 'normalcy' even when a funding lapse is imminent or ongoing due to executive action, potentially diluting the pressure on Congress to reach a final agreement.
Estimated impact: This provision clarifies the precise timing and duration of the procedural restrictions on the legislative branch during a funding lapse, potentially affecting the perceived urgency for action during specific phases of a budget impasse.
This subsection specifies that for entitlements and other mandatory payments whose budget authority was provided in preceding appropriation Acts, and for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, automatic appropriations shall be at the rate necessary to maintain program levels under current law.
Section 2(b)(3)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include specific directives for critical programs like entitlements to ensure their uninterrupted operation and to protect beneficiaries, rather than being an attempt to hide a provision.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures vital safety net programs and mandatory payments continue without disruption or reduction during a funding lapse, thereby protecting vulnerable populations and fulfilling existing legal obligations.
Case against: No direct opposition is typically raised against this specific provision, as it aims to protect existing program levels for critical services. However, some might argue that it highlights the limitations of a simple 'prior year rate' for all programs.
Estimated impact: This provision guarantees the continued funding for significant mandatory spending programs, which constitute a large portion of the federal budget, preventing their disruption and ensuring millions of Americans continue to receive essential benefits during a lapse.