Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services relating to "Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents".
A Democratic resolution with 10 Democratic cosponsors · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 50. Record Vote Number: 111. (CR S2106)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
How Congress voted
- See who voted how →A vote on whether to start debating something · 04/29/2026
What this bill would do
This joint resolution seeks to express congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The rule in question is titled "Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents." If passed, the resolution would dictate that the rule has no force or effect. The resolution was introduced by Ms. Rosen and several other senators.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The bill prevents the removal of automatic extensions for employment authorization documents, which is vital for immigrant workers' stability.
- Scored +2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Maintaining work authorization provides greater economic stability for immigrant households.
- Scored +2
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The preservation of employment document extensions provides stability for the significant Hispanic immigrant population.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this give the federal government more power?
The resolution uses congressional authority to overturn a rule established by a federal agency.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Blocked 47 yes · 50 no
04/29/2026 · Roll call 111 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed S.J.Res. 99”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Maintaining Employment Authorization: By disapproving the rule, the resolution aims to prevent the "Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents." This would prevent the change proposed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding how these documents are extended.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill prevents the removal of automatic extensions for employment authorization documents, which is vital for immigrant workers' stability. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The preservation of employment document extensions provides stability for the significant Hispanic immigrant population. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Maintaining work authorization provides greater economic stability for immigrant households.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — By maintaining the automatic extension of employment authorization, the bill helps ensure that workers can continue working without interruption.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution uses congressional authority to overturn a rule established by a federal agency.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — Maintaining employment authorization helps stabilize the status of immigrants currently in the system.
- 4/29/2026
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 50. Record Vote Number: 111. (CR S2106)
- 3/24/2026
- Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 366.
- 3/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/10/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 10 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat · Nevada
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts