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 reduce the pay of members of Congress by one day's worth of salary for each day a government shutdown is in effect. Before the November 2026 general election, withheld pay would be held in escrow and released to members at that date — a design intended to comply with the 27th Amendment, which prohibits varying congressional compensation during the current Congress. After November 2026, the pay reduction would be permanent, with no escrow or repayment.
Who benefits
Taxpayers who would see reduced congressional payroll costs during shutdowns (after November 2026). Federal workers and government contractors who may benefit indirectly if the financial incentive discourages shutdowns. Voters who favor accountability measures for Congress. Small businesses and communities that depend on federal spending flows that are disrupted during shutdowns.
Who is hurt
Members of Congress, who would lose pay for each shutdown day after November 2026. Wealthier members may be less deterred than those who rely more heavily on their congressional salary (~$174,000/year for most members). The bill does not affect congressional staff, who already face furloughs or deferred pay during shutdowns, potentially widening the disparity between member and staff treatment. If the escrow mechanism is legally challenged, administrative costs could fall on the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that members of Congress bear direct responsibility for passing appropriations bills and that allowing them to collect full pay during shutdowns removes a key financial incentive to resolve funding disputes. They contend that federal workers — who are furloughed or work without pay during shutdowns — already bear the cost of congressional inaction, and that this bill creates a modest but meaningful consequence for the lawmakers who caused the impasse. The bill's two-phase structure, they argue, demonstrates careful constitutional draftsmanship by using an escrow mechanism to comply with the 27th Amendment before the 2026 election.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill is largely symbolic because the escrow mechanism means members of Congress face no actual financial loss until after November 2026, and even then the pay reduction may be too small to change behavior among members who are independently wealthy. They contend that the bill does nothing to address the structural causes of shutdowns — such as the appropriations process itself or the use of continuing resolutions — and may give members political cover to claim accountability without enacting meaningful process changes. Critics also note that the bill does not apply to congressional staff, who already suffer real financial harm during shutdowns, making the measure incomplete.
Constitutional context
The 27th Amendment prohibits any law varying congressional compensation from taking effect until after an intervening election. The bill explicitly acknowledges this constraint by using an escrow mechanism for the current Congress and delaying permanent pay reductions until after the November 2026 election. No Commerce Clause or agency authority issues are implicated, as this is a direct congressional self-governance measure.
Checks and balances
Congress would reduce its own compensation through this bill; the Secretary of the Senate and Chief Administrative Officer of the House would administer the pay withholding, with the Secretary of the Treasury providing support — keeping implementation within the legislative branch with no new executive agency authority created.
Historical precedent
The No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 similarly withheld congressional pay during a debt ceiling impasse, using an escrow mechanism designed to comply with the 27th Amendment, and is the most direct legislative precedent for this approach.