Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal year.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 7
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Congress
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-03-15T08:05:29Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 7) proposes a constitutional amendment to encourage timely passage of federal budgets by linking Members of Congress's compensation to the approval of a budget resolution before each fiscal year begins. The goal is to promote fiscal responsibility and prevent delays in the budgeting process.
Key Provisions
- Section 1: Members of Congress cannot receive pay for their service during a fiscal year unless both the House and Senate pass an identical concurrent resolution on the budget for that year before the fiscal year starts (typically October 1).
- Section 2: The amendment would take effect for fiscal years beginning after its ratification as part of the Constitution.
- The amendment requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years of submission.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Under current law (the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974), Congress is required to pass a concurrent budget resolution by April 15 each year, but there is no penalty for failure, and Congress can continue operating via continuing resolutions or other funding measures.
- This amendment would introduce a constitutional penalty (withholding pay) for not meeting the deadline, elevating budget timeliness from statutory to constitutional status and making it harder to ignore.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Could lead to more predictable funding timelines, reducing reliance on short-term continuing resolutions that often cause operational disruptions, but prolonged delays might exacerbate shutdown risks if pay withholding stalls negotiations.
- On Citizens: May improve fiscal discipline, potentially leading to more stable government services and reduced uncertainty in areas like Social Security, defense, or disaster aid; however, it could indirectly affect public services if budget gridlock worsens.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though delayed budgets could affect U.S. credibility in global financial markets or foreign aid commitments, potentially influencing diplomatic efforts tied to funding.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Members of Congress: Directly impacted as their salaries (currently around $174,000 annually for rank-and-file members) would be at risk, creating personal incentives for timely action.
- Federal Agencies and Employees: Benefit from budget certainty but could face instability during negotiation periods.
- Taxpayers and the Public: Indirectly affected through potential improvements in government efficiency and accountability, or disruptions if budgets are delayed.
- State Governments: Involved in the ratification process, with legislatures voting on whether to adopt the amendment.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: This would be a rare addition to Article I (which already addresses congressional compensation in Section 6), reinforcing the framers' intent for self-imposed fiscal restraints while requiring a high bar for adoption (two-thirds congressional vote and three-fourths state ratification).
- Legal: Shifts budget enforcement from enforceable statutes to the Constitution, making it immune to simple legislative repeal; courts might face challenges interpreting "identical concurrent resolution" or exceptions for emergencies.
- Political: Could foster bipartisanship by tying pay to compromise, but might intensify partisan standoffs, leading to more frequent pay disputes or legal battles over implementation; it aligns with broader movements for congressional accountability without addressing broader issues like debt limits.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]
Cosponsors (1)
Rep. Bresnahan, Robert [R-PA-8]
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal year. — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (2 pages)