Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) objected twice to Senator John Kennedy’s (R-LA) proposals that would have blocked members of Congress from receiving pay during the ongoing government shutdown, legislation Kennedy says is necessary to make lawmakers feel the same pain as the Americans affected by Washington’s dysfunction.
Kennedy introduced his “No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act”, calling for an immediate halt to congressional pay during the shutdown and the elimination of back pay once government funding is restored.
Kennedy argued that his proposal is both simple and fair, emphasizing that federal employees like air traffic controllers, military service members, and staffers are already suffering without pay. His bill, he said, would ensure lawmakers are not shielded from the same financial consequences.
Kennedy asked for unanimous consent to immediately pass his bill, but Rand Paul was quick to object.
Paul, reserving the right to object, said the focus should be on re-opening government and paying those who are working, not punishing members of Congress.
Paul argued that withholding pay from lawmakers distracts from the larger problem of bureaucratic dysfunction and the unfair treatment of federal workers who are continuing their duties during the shutdown.
He even proposed an alternative, the Shutdown Prevention and Pay Workers Act, which would ensure essential government workers, including the military, are paid during any future shutdowns.
Kennedy rejected Paul’s amendment, accusing him of derailing a bill that could actually pass both chambers and be signed into law.
John Kennedy:
For the members’ consideration. Starting with my first bill — which would say members of Congress can’t be paid and don’t get back pay even after we end the shutdown — that’s called the No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill — that bill, which I just described and which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.Jon Husted:
Is there an objection?Rand Paul:
Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I think it’s time that instead of closing the government down further, we begin to open up government.What I will offer is legislation that, instead of closing government down further, begins to pay those who are working — pays our soldiers, pays our air traffic controllers, pays everyone who’s showing up for work.
I think this should become a permanent feature of our government. I think it’s disruptive, I think it’s unfair, and I think it’s wrong that we don’t pay the workers who are showing up.
A better way than isolating out different groups and punishing different groups is to actually pay those who are working. I think we should do this. If we were to pass this legislation, this would never be a problem again.
We’re going to run into disagreements in the future. We’re going to have times when the government shuts down. But there’s no reason that we shouldn’t be paying our government workers.
Jon Husted:
Would the senator modify his request?John Kennedy:
I will not, Mr. President, and I’d like to explain why. I understand Senator Paul is making a good point.What he’s saying is rather than saying, as I am, that nobody else is being paid so members of Congress shouldn’t be paid — I think what Senator Paul is saying is, “Let’s pay everybody.” That’s what I understand him to be saying. He wants me to agree to that instead of my bill.
What Senator Paul is proposing is Senator Ron Johnson’s No Shutdown Act that we’ve voted on several times. I’m for it — I’ve voted for it several times.
Here’s the problem I have with Senator Paul’s proposal of pulling down my bill and going with Senator Johnson’s bill — several reasons.
Number one, I’m interested in passing something. I’m not interested in just putting on a show. My bill will pass the House of Representatives, and my bill will be signed by the President. Senator Paul’s bill, I can assure you, will not pass the House of Representatives, and President Trump will not sign it.
I’m not saying someone’s right or someone’s wrong. President Trump does not consider Senator Paul to be part of his MAGA agenda, and he will veto it.
John Kennedy:
Then we’re right back to square one. For that reason, I can’t substitute his for mine, because his is going to be as dead as fried chicken here in a few days, and mine has a chance to pass.Now, I need some clarification, Mr. President — parliamentary inquiry, if you will. Do I understand that Senator Paul has objected to my bill?
Jon Husted:
The senator from Kentucky asked if you would modify your request.John Kennedy:
Jon Husted:
That is the understanding of the chair.John Kennedy:
Okay. I have said I will not substitute his bill for mine.[…]
Rand Paul:
Reserving the right to object. I think it’s actually not clear at all that the President wouldn’t sign a bill to continue paying federal workers. I think it’s a universal sentiment among both parties — among the American people, particularly among the soldiers — that we ought to continue to pay the soldiers, continue to pay the workers.I’m perhaps the most conservative member of the Senate. I vote to cut spending on everything. I think we spend way too much, but I’m not for cutting the salaries of people who have a contract and who are doing their work.
Now, I probably would not hire new people, and I would probably let the federal government shrink gradually through attrition, because I think we need to be smaller. But if you work for government, you’re doing your job, and you have a contract, I think you ought to be paid.
So I don’t think it’s clear that the President wouldn’t support this. I think it’s actually quite confusing that this is being objected to by the Democrats. And I think it’d be nice to let the Democrats have a round at this and explain to us why they don’t want to pay air traffic controllers.
Look, we can have a dispute over spending.
Rand Paul:
I think the Republican proposal spends too much. I think the Democrat proposal spends too much. But I think we ought to pay the workers while we’re working out the debate over what the spending level ought to be.I think it’s actually an untenable position of Democrats to come before this body and say, “Oh, we want to give subsidies to people who make $225,000 a year.” That’s what they’re arguing for.
The Obamacare subsidies are not the basic subsidies. These are add-on subsidies that started two years ago. If you make $100,000 a year, the Democrats want to give you $13,000. Meanwhile, people who make $20,000 and are on food stamps are not going to get food stamps, but somebody making $100,000 is going to get $13,000.
That doesn’t sound like the Democrats are for the working class or for the poor. It sounds like the Democrats are for people making $200,000 a year to get a subsidy.
But I think, in the midst of all this, with pressure, the Democrats could be made to understand and support paying the government workers. I just think it’s something eminently reasonable. I think it is something very passable.
I don’t see the President objecting to this. I think the President would sign this in a heartbeat. So I object.
Not deterred, Kennedy introduced a second bill, the “Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act.” This version would temporarily escrow congressional pay during the shutdown, releasing it only after the government reopens.
But Paul once again objected, holding firm to his view that the solution is to pay workers, not to withhold pay from lawmakers.
WATCH:
BREAKING: Senator Paul just OBJECTED TWICE to Senator Kennedy’s proposals that would NOT PAY members of Congress during a shutdown.
Paul: “I don’t want to pay LESS PEOPLE [during a shutdown], I want to pay MORE.”
He wants to make a PERMANENT PAYDAY for his fellow CROOKS! UNREAL pic.twitter.com/hqU5KoqEvM
— Gunther Eagleman
(@GuntherEagleman) November 6, 2025
The post Senator Rand Paul OBJECTS TWICE to Senator John Kennedy’s Proposal to STOP Congressional Pay During Schumer Shutdown appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
About the Author
