Overview
Title
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.
ELI5 AI
This plan wants to make sure that people in Congress don't get paid if they can't agree on a budget for the year before it starts. For it to happen, lots of states have to say it's okay.
Summary AI
H.J. Res. 7 proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would prevent Members of Congress from getting paid during a fiscal year unless both the House and the Senate have agreed on a budget resolution before that fiscal year starts. If approved by Congress, this amendment would need to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years to become part of the Constitution. The rule would only apply to fiscal years beginning after the amendment is fully ratified.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The joint resolution, H. J. RES. 7, proposes an amendment to the United States Constitution. The primary intention of the amendment is to withhold compensation from members of Congress until both the House of Representatives and the Senate have reached an agreement on a concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This requirement must be fulfilled before the fiscal year begins. The amendment aims to establish accountability and encourage timely budget decisions by linking Congressional pay to the completion of the budgetary process.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the significant issues with the proposed amendment is its lack of clarity on what happens if the Congress fails to agree on a budget. The text is silent on whether there will be an alternative mechanism to compensate members under such circumstances, which can create ambiguity and uncertainty. There is also a concern that the amendment might not take into account unforeseen external factors and complexities that could delay the budgeting process, potentially leading to financial instability for members of Congress.
The requirement for an 'identical concurrent resolution' may be difficult to achieve due to the often complex and contentious nature of budget negotiations. This could lead to operational delays or potential conflicts within Congress that the amendment does not address. Moreover, the concept of an 'identical concurrent resolution,' along with necessary budgetary goals and benchmarks, may be unclear to the general public, necessitating further explanation.
Additionally, the amendment may not provide sufficient detail on its integration with existing Constitutional provisions regarding Congressional compensation and budget processes, potentially leading to legal or operational conflicts.
Impact on the Public
The proposed amendment could have broad implications for the public by aiming to foster discipline and urgency within Congress to agree on budgets promptly. This could result in more predictable and timely government operations, potentially minimizing disruptions caused by government shutdowns due to budget impasses.
However, the rigidity of the amendment might lead to unintended consequences, such as increased partisan conflict, as members of Congress might find themselves pressured to agree on potentially unsatisfactory budgetary solutions to ensure compensation continues. This could eventually impact the quality of budgetary decisions and public policy outcomes.
Impact on Stakeholders
Congress Members: The most direct impact of this proposed amendment would be on Congress members, who could face financial instability if a budget resolution is not timely agreed upon. While this may motivate prompt budgeting, it might also subject them to undue pressure and conflicts that hinder effective governance.
Public Sector and Government Employees: Indirectly, government employees and agencies could experience more stable operations without fears of budget-related shutdowns if the amendment helps achieve more timely budget agreements.
Citizens: Ordinary citizens may notice potential improvements in government service delivery if timely budgeting becomes the norm. Conversely, if partisan negotiations become more contentious due to the pressure of the amendment, citizens might witness increased political gridlock or poorly structured budget agreements.
In conclusion, while the proposed amendment aims to improve the budgeting process in Congress, its simplistic approach overlooks the complexities of legislative negotiations and the potential for unintended negative impacts. Providing clearer guidelines and mechanisms within the amendment, alongside considering its interaction with existing legal frameworks, could mitigate such concerns.
Issues
The amendment imposes a condition on Congressional compensation without accounting for potential delays in the budget resolution process, leading to potential financial instability for members of Congress (Section \\u2014).
The text does not clarify what occurs if both Houses of Congress fail to agree on a budget resolution, creating ambiguity about whether members will work without pay or if temporary financial arrangements will be made (Section 1).
This amendment could be considered overly punitive or impractical as it does not account for external factors that may prevent a timely budget agreement (Section \\u2014).
The amendment lacks detail on how it will interact with existing Constitutional provisions regarding Congressional compensation and the budget process, potentially leading to legal and operational conflicts (Section \\u2014).
There is insufficient explanation on what constitutes an 'identical concurrent resolution’ and what specific budget goals or benchmarks need to be met, which may be confusing for the general public (Section 1).
The lack of detail about the article's process to become a valid part of the Constitution and its applicability to future fiscal years creates ambiguity (Section 2).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
— Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that members of Congress cannot be paid for their work unless both the House and the Senate agree on a budget before the fiscal year starts. This rule will apply to fiscal years beginning after the amendment is officially added to the Constitution.
1. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A Member of Congress cannot be paid for their work during a fiscal year unless both the House of Representatives and the Senate have agreed on a matching budget plan for that year before it begins.
2. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the article will apply to fiscal years starting after it officially becomes part of the Constitution.