Congressional Pay Cut Plan Sparks Debate

US House of Representatives seal on glass door

A Texas congressman just introduced a bill that would cut off pay and strip all power from any lawmaker who stays in Congress beyond 12 years — and Washington’s career politicians are not happy about it.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Chip Roy introduced a bill that removes salary and bans leadership roles for any member of Congress who serves more than 12 cumulative years.
Members could still stay in office after 12 years, but they would serve as unpaid volunteers with no committee posts and no leadership positions.
Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Ralph Norman are pushing a separate constitutional amendment to set hard term limits on congressional service.
Polls show roughly 87 percent of Americans support some form of congressional term limits, yet Congress keeps blocking reform efforts.

Roy’s Plan: No Pay, No Power After 12 Years

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas introduced his No-Pay, No-Committees bill on June 9, 2026. Starting with the 121st Congress, any member who reaches 12 cumulative years of service would lose their salary and become ineligible for any leadership role. That means no committee chairmanships, no ranking-member posts, and no House or Senate leadership positions. Roy says the bill works through each chamber’s own rulemaking power, so it does not require a constitutional amendment to take effect. ^[2]

Roy framed the bill as a direct attack on the incentives that keep career politicians glued to their seats. “For too long, Washington has rewarded longevity with greater power, higher pay, and deeper entrenchment,” Roy said. “This bill helps ensure that public service remains exactly that: service to the people, not a lifelong career in politics.” ^[2] Members who want to stay beyond 12 years can do so — but they would essentially become volunteers with no real institutional clout. ^[3]

A Broader Push for Term Limits in Congress

Roy’s bill is part of a wider Republican push to force turnover in Congress. Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Ralph Norman introduced a constitutional amendment that would cap House members at three two-year terms and senators at two six-year terms. Cruz called term limits “critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington.” ^[5] Senator Katie Britt joined Cruz in reintroducing the amendment, adding more momentum to the effort. ^[7] These proposals share the same core goal: break the grip of career politicians who have held power for decades.

Public opinion strongly backs reform. A September 2023 Pew Research survey found that 87 percent of Americans support term limits for Congress. A University of Maryland study from the same year showed 83 percent support for a constitutional amendment to set those limits. ^[8] Despite that overwhelming public backing, the House Judiciary Committee voted down a related resolution 19 to 17 in September 2023, showing how hard it is to push reform through a body filled with the very people it targets. ^[8]

The Constitutional Roadblock

Direct term limits face a steep legal wall. The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that only a constitutional amendment can place term limits on members of Congress. States cannot do it on their own. ^[8] That ruling is why Roy’s approach targets pay and power rather than service itself. By using chamber rulemaking authority instead of a statute, the bill tries to sidestep the constitutional barrier. However, no formal legal analysis from House or Senate counsel has been made public to confirm whether this approach would survive a legal challenge. ^[1]

For decades, Washington has operated on a simple principle: the longer you stick around, the more power you collect. Committee gavels. Leadership titles. Bigger influence. Better perks. A seat at every important table. Now one Republican lawmaker wants to throw a wrench into that…

— Common Sense with Chad Law (@chadparkerlaw) June 11, 2026

Critics argue the bill is more symbolic than structural because it does not actually force anyone to leave office. A member could theoretically keep serving with no pay and no power, which some say weakens the reform’s punch. Opponents also warn that pushing out experienced lawmakers could increase Congress’s reliance on lobbyists and outside staff to fill policy knowledge gaps. ^[17] Those are fair points worth watching. But the deeper problem is clear: a system where power grows the longer you stay, regardless of results, is not serving the American people. Roy’s bill at least changes the incentives — and that is a start voters have been demanding for a long time. ^[9]