Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would stop Members of Congress from being paid for a fiscal year unless both the House and Senate have agreed to an identical concurrent budget resolution before that year starts. As a constitutional amendment, it must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to become part of the Constitution. The resolution itself sets a seven-year deadline for state ratification. Proposed constitutional amendments do not go to the President for signature.
To become effective this amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states; the text specifies a seven-year time limit for ratification. Proposed constitutional amendments are not presented to the President.
This proposed constitutional amendment would bar Members of Congress from receiving compensation for service in any fiscal year unless both the House and Senate have agreed to an identical concurrent budget resolution for that fiscal year before the fiscal year begins.
The rule would apply only to fiscal years starting after the amendment is ratified.
Narrow, low-cost idea increases appeal, but constitutional amendment route with 2/3 congressional votes and 3/4 state ratification makes actual enactment unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise constitutional amendment that clearly states a single operative rule linking Members' compensation to the prior adoption of an identical concurrent budget resolution for a fiscal year. It succeeds at stating the core requirement but leaves key implementation, definitional, and remedial details to subsequent law or practice.
Liberals: worry about governance harms and weaponization of pay
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals: worry about governance harms and weaponization of pay
Mixed.
The goal of enforcing timely budgets aligns with accountability, but constitutionalizing pay-withholding raises governance and equity concerns.
They would worry the provision could be used as a political weapon and harm constituent services.
Cautiously skeptical.
Supports the objective of timely budget agreement but prefers procedural or statutory fixes over a constitutional amendment.
Concerned about rigidity and unintended incentives created by tying pay to a specific procedural outcome.
Generally favorable.
Sees the amendment as a strong accountability tool to force Congress to do its budgeting work on time and as a check on chronic fiscal irresponsibility.
Likely to view it as restoring discipline to federal spending processes.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost idea increases appeal, but constitutional amendment route with 2/3 congressional votes and 3/4 state ratification makes actual enactment unlikely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals: worry about governance harms and weaponization of pay
Narrow, low-cost idea increases appeal, but constitutional amendment route with 2/3 congressional votes and 3/4 state ratification makes ac…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise constitutional amendment that clearly states a single operative rule linking Members' compensation to the prior adoption of an identical concurrent budge…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.