Week Ending September 4, 2026
Most of us only hear about Congress through screaming cable news segments or social media clips designed to make us mad before we’re informed. The People’s Ledger is different. It’s a quick, clear look at what lawmakers are actually debating, funding, and changing – minus the political theater.
Congress Bought Itself Until December
Congress came back to Washington, worked for a few days, and then headed right back out.
But those few days produced several votes worthy of our attention.
Congress avoided an October government shutdown by extending federal funding through December. The House passed legislation speeding federal reviews for mining projects. It also approved a bill threatening federal aid to universities that boycott Israel. And Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to amend the Constitution to permanently set the Supreme Court at nine justices.
There is a common thread running through much of it:
Washington keeps finding ways to postpone hard decisions while permanently changing the rules around the edges.
Here’s what happened in our names last week.
1. Biggest Story of the Week: Congress Avoided a Shutdown by Moving the Deadline
What Happened
The House voted 370–48 on September 1st to approve a temporary government funding bill that had already passed the Senate.
President Trump signed it on September 2.
The law keeps most federal agencies funded through December 11th, preventing the government from running out of money when the new fiscal year begins October 1.
This kind of temporary spending law is called a continuing resolution, or CR.
In normal English: Congress didn’t do its job again this year by failing to finish deciding how much money the government should spend next year, so it extended much of the current arrangement for another couple of months.
What Changed
The immediate threat of an October shutdown is gone.
That is genuinely good news for federal employees, contractors, military families, businesses dealing with federal agencies, and Americans who depend on government services.
But virtually none of the underlying spending decisions were resolved.
Congress simply changed the deadline from September 30th to December 11th.
That also moves the next major spending fight beyond the November 3 midterm elections.
Why It Matters
There is nothing inherently wrong with using a temporary funding bill during an emergency or unusually complicated negotiation.
The problem is that temporary funding has become normal.
Since the modern congressional budget process began, Congress has completed all of its regular appropriations before the new fiscal year began only four times: FY1977, FY1989, FY1995 and FY1997.
The last time was September 1996.
Thirty years later, Congress is once again entering a new fiscal year without completing its annual spending work.
That matters because a continuing resolution largely preserves yesterday’s spending priorities rather than forcing lawmakers to publicly decide what should grow, what should shrink, what should disappear, and what taxpayers should stop funding altogether.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Federal employees and contractors because the immediate risk of another shutdown disappears. Americans who depend on federal services because agencies will remain open and operating. And members of Congress, where a likely nasty spending fight has been moved safely beyond Election Day.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers because much of the federal government continues operating on autopilot without a full program-by-program spending debate.
Federal managers because temporary funding makes long-term planning harder and can delay new programs or priorities. And congressional accountability, because lawmakers avoid the deadline without actually doing the work that created it.
Publius Project Take
Avoiding a shutdown is better than having one, but that’s a pretty damn low standard if simply keeping the government open now counts as successful budgeting.
Congress knows when the fiscal year ends because it happens on the same date every year - September 30th. Nobody surprised them with it.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse because spending taxpayer money should require deliberate legislative choices.
And, as I said, a temporary funding patch can be useful, but it’s not supposed to be the standard operating procedure of the United States Congress.
What to Watch For Next
December 11th is now the important date.
The question is whether Congress uses the extra time to finish the annual spending bills or waits until December and rolls everything into another giant, last-minute package.
History suggests taxpayers should expect another extension, especially since lawmakers will spend the next two months campaigning for their jobs.
2. Quietly Moving Bills: Congress Wants to Speed Up Mining Permits
What Happened
The House passed H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, by a vote of 218–201 on September 2nd.
The legislation would permanently make mining and mineral-processing projects eligible for a federal permitting system known as FAST-41, which sounds more complicated than it actually is.
Large projects often require approvals from several federal agencies. FAST-41 creates a coordinated timetable, publicly tracks milestones, and tries to keep those agencies from endlessly passing a project back and forth.
The bill would also prevent a proposed rule that could limit the expedited process mainly to mining involving designated critical minerals.
What Changed
Mining projects are already eligible for FAST-41 under current federal policy.
H.R. 1501 would write that eligibility directly into law, making it harder for a future administration to change the policy through regulation, which is an important feature.
This is less about creating an entirely new permitting system than about deciding whether access to that system should depend on whoever occupies the White House.
Why It Matters
We depend heavily on foreign sources for minerals used in electronics, vehicles, energy systems, and defense equipment.
Supporters argue that taking years or even decades to approve domestic mining projects makes America more dependent on countries such as China, which is a legitimate national security concern.
Opponents argue that FAST-41 can shorten opportunities for public challenges and judicial review, and they want the faster process limited primarily to minerals that are actually critical to national security.
Importantly, the bill does NOT simply erase federal environmental laws. Projects would still have to undergo required environmental reviews.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Domestic mining companies with more predictable federal permitting. Manufacturers with potentially greater access to minerals produced inside the US. And national-security planners because less dependence on foreign mineral supply chains could reduce a significant strategic vulnerability.
Likely Losers: Environmental and tribal groups because faster permitting timelines may give communities less room to challenge projects they believe threaten land, water, or tribal interests. And projects competing for federal review resources because expanding FAST-41 to essentially all qualifying mining projects could mean less attention for minerals considered truly critical.
Publius Project Take
America should absolutely produce more of the resources we need here at home. Depending on geopolitical rivals for materials essential to our military and economy is and always has been a stupid policy. But permitting reform should mean making government reach a decision faster, not guaranteeing industry the answer it wants.
And that distinction matters, because the government should establish clear standards, clear timelines, and transparent decisions; then approve good projects and reject bad ones. And we should stop making everybody wait 15 years to find out which is which.
What to Watch For Next
H.R. 1501 now moves to the Senate.
Watch whether senators keep its broad coverage or narrow the expedited process specifically to critical minerals and strategically important projects.
3. Money & Spending: Three Spending Bills Down. Nine to Go. And None are Law.
What Happened
Congress has twelve regular appropriations bills that fund most day-to-day federal agencies and programs and, as of September 3rd, the House had only passed three:
Agriculture
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
National Security and State Department programs
The remaining nine have cleared the House Appropriations Committee but not the full House.
The Senate hasn’t passed any of the twelve.
And none have become law.
What Changed
Practically speaking, the September 30th deadline no longer means much. Congress has passed another temporary funding measure through December 11th.
That removes the threat of an immediate shutdown but also removes most of the pressure that might’ve forced lawmakers to finish the appropriations process.
Why It Matters
Appropriations are where Congress is supposed to ask basic questions:
Does this program work?
Should it still exist?
Does it need more money?
Could it operate with less?
Is another program doing the same thing?
A continuing resolution largely avoids those questions by extending current funding.
That’s very convenient, but it’s not oversight.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Existing federal programs, congressional leadership and anyone who benefits from avoiding a detailed spending fight before an election.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers, fiscal accountability and lawmakers who actually want individual spending bills debated on their merits.
Publius Project Take
This is exactly why the Publius Project has argued for single-subject bills, stronger sunset requirements and a Congress that actually spends enough time legislating to do its job.
The federal government spends trillions of dollars.
Congress should not fund it like someone frantically paying bills at 11:58 p.m. before the power gets shut off.
What to Watch For Next
Watch December.
If Congress starts talking about an enormous year-end omnibus spending bill, remember this moment.
They had more than three additional months.
4. Coming to the House Floor This Week
Nothing. Again.
The House designated September 3 through September 13 as a district work period, meaning lawmakers are back home rather than conducting normal legislative business in Washington.
So, there are no major House bills to preview this week.
Publius Project Take
This is one place where we’re not going to reflexively complain about Congress leaving Washington, because representatives should spend meaningful time in their districts.
The problem isn’t going home.
The problem is returning to Washington and still refusing to complete the basic work.
Ask your representative what he or she intends to do about the nine appropriations bills the House hasn’t passed.
That’s what a district work period is supposed to be for.
What to Watch For Next
The House returns for regular business after September 13th.
Its first priority should be obvious:
Finish the damn spending bills.
5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power: Can D.C. Punish a University for Boycotting Israel?
What Happened
The House passed H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, 237–169 on September 3rd.
Thirty-three Democrats joined 203 Republicans in supporting it. Two Republicans voted against it.
The bill would make colleges participating in federal student-aid programs ineligible if the institution engages in what the legislation calls a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel or Israeli businesses without a legitimate business reason.
It would also require certain universities receiving federal international-education funding to treat academic programs involving Israel the same way they treat programs involving other foreign countries.
What Changed
The debate over Israel and American universities has moved from congressional hearings and presidential pressure into actual legislation.
The House is now proposing to attach federal funding consequences to certain institutional decisions involving Israel.
The bill still needs Senate approval to become law.
Why It Matters
There are two legitimate principles colliding here.
The first is that taxpayers shouldn’t be required to subsidize discrimination.
Supporters argue that federally funded universities shouldn’t single out Israeli institutions, businesses, students, or professors merely because they are Israeli.
Fair enough - but the second principle is freedom of expression.
Political boycotts have a long history in America as a way citizens and organizations protest government policies they oppose.
That means Congress has to be extremely careful when it starts saying:
You may hold this political position, but adopting it as institutional policy could cost you federal money.
The bill’s authors tried to address that concern by focusing on what they describe as commercial conduct rather than speech. Critics argue the distinction may not be nearly that clean in practice.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Israeli universities, researchers and businesses because American universities receiving federal support would face consequences for singling them out commercially or academically. And students seeking programs in Israel because universities covered by the bill would have to provide equal access to those opportunities.
Likely Losers: Universities participating in Israel boycotts because federal student-aid eligibility could be put at risk. And free-expression advocates because they worry Congress is using federal money to discourage politically motivated boycotts.
Publius Project Take
We don’t have to support the BDS movement to recognize the constitutional danger here. In fact, this is where principles matter most, because it’s easy to defend speech we agree with.
The First Amendment becomes important when somebody says something - or supports something - we think is wrong.
At the same time, federal taxpayers don’t have an unlimited obligation to subsidize discriminatory conduct by universities.
So, Congress needs to draw this line very carefully.
If the law targets actual discrimination against Israeli students, professors, or institutions because of their national origin, there is a strong case for action, but if it turns into a mechanism for punishing universities because they adopt a political position toward the Israeli government, that’s a very different matter.
Government should fight discrimination, but it shouldn’t be the national referee of acceptable political opinion.
What to Watch For Next
The Senate gets the bill now.
Watch whether senators narrow its language, strengthen protections for political expression or allow it to die without a vote.
6. What to Watch Next Week
Both chambers return to regular legislative business on September 14.
The Senate already has one significant item waiting.
On September 15th, senators are scheduled to vote on whether to move forward with H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the major cryptocurrency regulatory bill we discussed in the previous Ledger.
Also watch:
The FY2027 appropriations bills. Congress now has until December 11th, but every week it waits makes a giant year-end package more likely.
The Russia sanctions package. The Senate passed it before recess, but House action is still needed.
H.R. 4795. The university-Israel boycott legislation now waits on the Senate.
Supreme Court reform. The House voted 212–206 this week for a proposed constitutional amendment permanently setting the Court at nine justices, but constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote, so the proposal failed. The Constitution currently doesn’t specify the size of the Court, which has remained at nine since 1869.
That vote went nowhere legally.
Politically, expect the fight over the Court to continue straight through the midterms.
7. The Ledger’s Bottom Line
Congress did one genuinely useful thing this week - it removed the immediate threat of another government shutdown.
That’s a good thing.
But avoiding disaster isn’t the same thing as governing well. Congress still hasn’t enacted a single FY2027 appropriations bill. It’s now pushed the spending deadline beyond the election.
It spent valuable floor time on a constitutional amendment that had virtually no chance of passing while most of the government’s annual spending bills remain unfinished.
And it waded into another difficult First Amendment dispute involving universities and Israel.
There were worthwhile ideas in this week’s legislation.
Domestic mineral production deserves attention. Universities shouldn’t discriminate. The government shouldn’t shut down every few months because Congress can’t do their job.
But the same institutional problem keeps showing up:
Congress is very good at reacting to problems and very bad at doing the slow, boring work that prevents them.
Self-government requires more than speeches and emergency patches.
At some point, the legislature has to legislate.
8. Sources and Further Reading
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: FY2027 Appropriations Watch and status of all twelve regular spending bills.
Reuters: House passage and presidential approval of the continuing resolution through December 11.
Congressional Research Service: Historical use of continuing resolutions and the last fiscal year in which Congress completed all regular appropriations before October 1.
House Committee on Natural Resources and Congressional Record: H.R. 1501 and the debate over FAST-41 permitting for mining projects.
Congressional Budget Office and Government Publishing Office: Provisions of H.R. 4795 governing university boycotts and federal education funding.
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives: Roll-call votes on H.R. 4795 and the proposed Supreme Court amendment.
United States Senate: September return schedule and planned consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.