PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
This joint resolution proposes amending the Constitution to prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation unless both chambers have agreed to a fiscal year budget prior to the start of the fiscal year.
The joint resolution provides that the amendment shall be valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification. The amendment applies beginning in the fiscal year after the amendment is ratified and becomes a valid part of the Constitution.
Under Article V of the Constitution, both chambers of Congress may propose an amendment by a vote of two-thirds of all Members present for such vote. A proposed amendment must be ratified by the states as prescribed in Article V and as specified by Congress.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.7 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.7 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.7 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.7 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-01-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment linking members of Congress’s pay to timely agreement on a budget. Members could receive compensation for their congressional service during a fiscal year—a yearly budget period—only if the House and Senate had agreed to the same budget resolution before that year began. The change would require state ratification before becoming part of the Constitution.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
A Member of Congress may not receive a compensation for service as a Member of Congress during a fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to an identical concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal year.
The proposed restriction concerns compensation for congressional service. It would condition each member’s pay on agreement by both chambers of Congress, rather than on that member’s individual vote.
A Member of Congress may not receive a compensation for service as a Member of Congress during a fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to an identical concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal year.
The House and Senate would have to agree to identical budget resolutions for the relevant fiscal year before that year began to satisfy the pay condition.
unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to an identical concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal year.
This is a proposed constitutional amendment, not an ordinary statute. The proposal requires ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years after submission for ratification.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
The pay restriction would apply only to fiscal years beginning after the amendment became part of the Constitution.
This article shall apply with respect to fiscal years which begin after this article becomes a valid part of the Constitution.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated March 15, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on January 3, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-03-15T08:05:29Z. 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures or committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No narrow preferential benefit, carve-out, or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Mar 15, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI