HR-5891-119
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 10 - 0.
Sponsored by Bryan Steil (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would stop Members of Congress from receiving their salaries during a government shutdown. Pay would be withheld for the duration of any lapse in federal appropriations. Members would not receive back pay for the period of the shutdown once funding is restored.
Who benefits
American taxpayers broadly, who would see congressional salaries suspended during shutdowns. Federal workers and contractors who supporters argue would gain leverage for faster resolution, as Congress would share the financial pain of a shutdown. Voters who favor financial accountability for elected officials.
Who is hurt
The 535 Members of Congress, who would lose salary income during any shutdown period. Members of lower personal wealth who rely more heavily on their congressional salary could be disproportionately affected compared to wealthier colleagues. Potentially, any constitutional challenge could affect the broader principle of legislative independence.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Members of Congress are directly responsible for passing appropriations bills, and it is fundamentally unfair that they continue to collect paychecks while hundreds of thousands of federal employees work without pay or are furloughed. By making lawmakers feel the same financial consequences as the workers and agencies affected by a shutdown, the bill would create a direct personal incentive for Congress to resolve funding disputes quickly. Supporters contend this is a straightforward accountability measure: the people who caused the problem should share in its consequences, and withholding pay is a proportionate and targeted way to align congressional self-interest with the public interest in keeping the government open.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill likely violates the 27th Amendment, which explicitly prohibits any law varying the compensation of Members of Congress from taking effect until after an intervening election. Withholding pay mid-term, even temporarily, would constitute exactly the kind of mid-term compensation change the Amendment was designed to prevent. Critics also contend that the bill could be seen as coercive — using financial pressure to force legislative outcomes — which may undermine the independence of the legislative branch. Additionally, opponents note that wealthier Members would be far less affected than less wealthy ones, making the measure unequal in practice and potentially ineffective as a deterrent for those with independent financial means.
Constitutional context
The central constitutional issue is the 27th Amendment, which states that no law varying congressional compensation shall take effect until after an intervening election. Courts would need to determine whether temporary withholding of pay constitutes a prohibited "variation" in compensation. Additional tension exists under the Speech or Debate Clause (Art. I, Sec. 6), which protects legislative independence. The Separation of Powers doctrine is also relevant, as the bill uses one branch's compensation to influence its legislative behavior. The Due Process Clause (5th Amendment) could be raised regarding property interests in earned wages.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift financial leverage toward the executive branch and the public during shutdown disputes, as Congress would face personal economic pressure to act. It could be read as the legislative branch imposing a self-disciplinary mechanism, but critics argue it functionally constrains legislative independence by tying compensation to outcomes. No new authority is granted to the executive or judicial branches directly.
Historical precedent
The No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 similarly withheld Member pay (via escrow) during debt ceiling and budget impasses, and faced 27th Amendment scrutiny. That law placed pay in escrow to be returned at the end of the Congress, a design intended to avoid a permanent compensation change. This bill's approach — with no guaranteed back pay — represents a more direct withholding and would face heightened constitutional scrutiny on the same grounds.