No Pay for Disarray Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 3, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to financially penalize Members of Congress for government shutdowns, creating a direct financial incentive to prevent them.
What it actually does
This bill proposes to reduce the annual pay of Members of Congress for each day a government shutdown occurs, with this provision taking effect after the November 2026 general election. For the current 119th Congress, it mandates that salaries be withheld and placed in an escrow account during a shutdown, to be released at the end of the Congress, as a mechanism to comply with the 27th Amendment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill holds Members of Congress directly accountable for their failure to pass appropriations bills, ensuring they share in the financial consequences of a government shutdown. It is seen as a measure to incentivize timely budget agreements and reduce the likelihood of future shutdowns by making them personally costly for lawmakers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is to promote accountability, linking pay to government shutdowns could be a largely symbolic gesture that does not address the fundamental causes of budgetary impasses. Some may also contend that the escrow mechanism for the current Congress is an overly complex workaround that diminishes the immediate incentive effect, or that the bill could face constitutional challenges if not implemented precisely.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2
Permanent Pay Reduction for Government Shutdowns
Starting after the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office in November 2026, if a government shutdown occurs, the annual pay of each Member of Congress will be directly reduced. The reduction amount will be equal to one day's worth of pay multiplied by the total number of 24-hour periods the government shutdown is in effect. This provision establishes a permanent, direct financial consequence for future Congresses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision creates a strong, direct financial incentive for Members of Congress to avoid government shutdowns, promoting fiscal responsibility and timely appropriations by making the consequences personal.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is to prevent shutdowns, this provision alone may not be sufficient to overcome deep policy disagreements that often lead to impasses. Some may also raise concerns about potential constitutional challenges if the application is not strictly adhered to for future terms.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to hold lawmakers directly accountable with potential constitutional concerns regarding congressional compensation, which the effective date attempts to address by applying it to future terms.
Section 3
Escrow of Member Salaries During Shutdowns for the 119th Congress
For any government shutdown occurring during the 119th Congress (before the November 2026 election), the payroll administrators of the House and Senate are required to withhold a day's worth of pay for each day of the shutdown from Members' compensation. These withheld amounts will be deposited into an escrow account and will only be released to the Members on the last day of the 119th Congress. This mechanism is designed to comply with the 27th Amendment, which prohibits changes to congressional compensation from taking effect until an intervening election.
Defines a 'Government shutdown' as a lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or department resulting from a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution.
Section 4
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include definitions in a dedicated section to ensure clarity and consistent application of terms throughout the Act.
Case for: Supporters argue that a clear and unambiguous definition of 'Government shutdown' is essential to prevent misinterpretation and ensure the bill's provisions are applied consistently and fairly when a shutdown event occurs.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clear definitions, but some might argue the definition could be too broad or too narrow depending on specific scenarios not explicitly covered.
Estimated impact: This definition ensures that the bill's core mechanism is triggered by clearly defined events, providing certainty for all affected parties.
Explicitly states that the escrow mechanism for the 119th Congress is designed to ensure that the section is carried out in a manner that does not violate the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits laws varying congressional compensation from taking effect until an intervening election.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is a technical legal justification for the escrow mechanism, essential for the bill's constitutionality but not the primary action described in the provision.
Case for: Proponents argue this demonstrates careful legislative drafting to ensure the bill's constitutionality, allowing for immediate (albeit delayed) accountability without violating existing law.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with this explicit statement, the escrow mechanism could still face legal challenges or that it's an overly complex workaround for a simple principle.
Estimated impact: This provision is crucial for the legal viability of the bill's immediate application to the current Congress.