Richard J. Durbin
Senator for Illinois · Democratic · United States
“(c) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall-- (1) conduct pursuant to subsection (a) a comprehensive study that examines and assesses the adequacy of laws addressing child marriage and the extent of child marriage across the country, including making specific findings relating to-- (A) barriers to and gaps in services for minors f…”
“(c) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall-- (1) conduct pursuant to subsection (a) a comprehensive study that examines and assesses the adequacy of laws addressing child marriage and the extent of child marriage across the country, including making specific findings relating to-- (A) barriers to and gaps in services for minors f…”
“(4) Qualifications.--Members appointed under paragraph (1) shall have demonstrated experience or expertise in-- (A) providing services to survivors of child marriage in the United States; (B) providing services to immigrant survivors of child marriage in the United States; (C) working with State governments to limit child marriage; (D) th…”
“(4) Qualifications.--Members appointed under paragraph (1) shall have demonstrated experience or expertise in-- (A) providing services to survivors of child marriage in the United States; (B) providing services to immigrant survivors of child marriage in the United States; (C) working with State governments to limit child marriage; (D) th…”
“(3) Rule of construction.--The amendments made by this subsection may not be construed to preclude, limit, or modify eligibility of any noncitizen spouse subjected to battery or extreme cruelty and otherwise eligible for relief as a VAWA self-petitioner (as defined in section 101(a)(51) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.”
“(3) Rule of construction.--The amendments made by this subsection may not be construed to preclude, limit, or modify eligibility of any noncitizen spouse subjected to battery or extreme cruelty and otherwise eligible for relief as a VAWA self-petitioner (as defined in section 101(a)(51) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,005 lines we hold for Richard J. Durbin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 21.
“I will tell you: It is exactly what he did in the months preceding the 2020 election that he sought to steal. He is trying to lay the groundwork to justify rigging the results of the next election. That is the real political theater. President Trump and his Republican Party are struggling in the polls. They know their MAGA agenda is making life more expensive, communities less safe, and government more corrupt. And guess what. We are now again, sadly, in a never-ending war. So now they are focused on reviving thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories to undermine future elections before a single vote is cast.”
“I asked my wife: Where is my birth certificate? She said: I think it is in a box in the closet. We haven't seen it in a long time. Well, according to the President's SAVE America bill, you are going to have to produce one. Incidentally, if you are a woman with a maiden name on a birth certificate, you have to have additional documentation. All of this to stop the scourge of noncitizens who voted. There were 77 of them over a 30-year period of time--77 in a nation of millions of people. But the President can't get it out of his head that somehow or another that foreigners have taken over our election. He lost one, and he just can't live with it. So why would the President have hosted a prime-time address attempting to resurrect these debunked claims?”
“Half of Americans don't own a passport. If you want to get a passport so you can vote in the next election in about 100 days, what does it take? Well, you go to the passport Agency, and you plop down $165--that is what it costs for a basic passport in this country--and then you hope--you hope--it arrives in time. If you want to speed it up, get an accelerated process, it is $225. So in order to exercise your right to vote, under the SAVE America law, the President wants you to pay a poll tax, a passport fee, of up to $225 to vote. Anything wrong with that? That is just against most of the laws we have promulgated over the years saying that poll taxes on people to vote are fundamentally unfair. Oh, you can bring your birth certificate. I was thinking about that when I was home over the weekend.”
“When we took a look, between 1993 and 2023--that would be 30 years, 1993 to 2023--millions and millions of votes were cast. How many noncitizens have we identified tried to vote in those elections? Well, if we are going to change the laws of the United States, there must be a lot of them. Turned out there were 77. Out of the millions of people who registered and voted, 77 were actually not citizens of the United States. The President wants to change the law. And how does he want to change the law? Well, if you want to register to vote, under the President's approach, you have to prove you are a citizen of the United States. How can you do that? Well, I will show my driver's license. I am sorry, that is not enough under this law. Under this law, you would have to show your passport. Got one in your back pocket?”
“It doesn't exist--none, not one page of documents backing up the claims he made in his public statement. No evidence. Election experts and State officials have called out this claim as ``wildly speculative.'' Here are the actual facts. You know the SAVE America Act which the President is focused on, fixed on, can't think of anything else? The idea behind it is to make sure that noncitizens don't vote in the United States. Would you guess that it is currently against the law in the United States for noncitizens to vote? It is true. Well, let's take a look. Took a look at the Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative group, and asked them to provide information on how many noncitizens have been caught trying to vote in the United States.”
“He alleges the deep state misrepresented what actually happened to hide information from him. Second, his then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, whom President Trump now has leading the Central Intelligence Agency, made public remarks addressing all of these concerns in 2020. It is hard to hide information you publicly discuss in press conferences. President Trump claimed the Department of Homeland Security has identified 278,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Federal elections. Think of that. The President of the United States claimed that his Agency of government has the names of 278,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Federal elections. Well, I sure want to see that evidence. I am sure the American people do too. The President can't produce it.”
“You see, despite the fact that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020 by 7 million votes, President Trump refuses to acknowledge the truth, and he continues to complain, which was the reason for his statement last week. In a 25-minute rant, the President alleged sweeping foreign interference in voting and railed against the so-called deep state. He was actually railing against his own administration. You see, the 2020 election was during his first term as President. He was in charge. He appointed the people that were supposed to enforce the law. The press conference and the announcement last week ignored that fact. These claims would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. First, the President was famous for not reading and requesting shorter and shorter versions of a brief provided by our intelligence community each day.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4148] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Trump Prime-Time Address to the Nation Mr. President, on a separate topic, last week, the President of the United States delivered a prime-time address from the White House. These sorts of addresses are usually reserved for national crises or the marking of a major milestone. So what was the occasion last week for President Trump to make such an address? To air 6-year-old grievances and lies about the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election.”
“We mourn the loss of these beloved community members, and Senate Democrats will continue to call for an end to these fatal raids.”
“Why is that important? I will tell you. This change will sharply limit law enforcement scrutiny of ICE agents. For years, the Department of Justice's involvement in officer- involved shootings has provided an independent set of eyes and often uncovered crucial facts, including misconduct by Federal officers-- misconduct that has been evident in recent cases. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General has at least agreed to investigate the use of excessive force by ICE agents, but it is unacceptable that the government's top law enforcement Agency, the FBI, has reportedly chosen to ignore its mission to enforce the law and instead does the White House's bidding. At a time when the American people are demanding more transparency and answers, the administration gives us less.”
“On the heels of these back-to-back killings which I have described, ICE temporarily paused traffic stops, but President Trump quickly took to social media to personally reverse that decision. The President said: ``The men and women of ICE are doing a GREAT job''-- Despite the recent reports of killings-- . . . and ``we CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.'s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!'' Being pulled over and shot in your car has to be part of the strategy of ICE, according to the President. Traffic stops have been among the deadliest [[Page S4148]] tactics during this President's mass raids, but apparently, he doesn't care. According to the New York Times just yesterday, the FBI has informed its agents around the country that the FBI would no longer investigate alleged assaults by immigration agents.”
“If there is a warrant or extraordinary circumstances, that is one thing, but the ICE agents crashed down the door of people they suspect might be in the United States undocumented. Many times, they are just plain wrong. Sometimes, those homeowners turn out to be U.S. citizens. Yet when we sit down and say ``That should be basic in America, shouldn't it? If somebody is going to invade my home, with my wife and my kids or grandkids in there, for goodness' sake, they ought to have at least the color of law behind them, the support of the court behind them''--not ICE agents--every instance we have tried to make these changes--simple, commonsense law enforcement changes--the Republicans said no. Instead, the administration has lurched in the opposite direction, enabling these abuses to continue.”
“We know that their background checks are obviously very weak, and the training is limited. We also know that when they are on the job, on the clock, they are wearing masks. When is the last time your local police wore a mask in your hometown? How about your State troopers when they pull you over on the highway? Are they wearing masks? Of course not. But this is insisted on because these ICE agents are so notorious. These fatalities that I have talked about could have been avoided. These people could be alive today. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, we tried time and again to get our Republican colleagues to sit down and agree just on some basics. Without a search warrant or an arrest warrant, a person posing to be a policeman should not be crashing down the door of your home. That is pretty basic, isn't it?”
“The ICE agent who fatally shot Mr. Guerrero was hired by the Trump administration despite the fact that he has a long history of domestic violence, abuse, and mental health issues. Yes, a man with a long history of mental health issues, abuse, and domestic violence was hired as an ICE agent and given a gun and a mask. It is not clear whether ICE simply failed to vet him or identified these issues and ignored them. DHS quickly rushed to claim that both shootings were justified, without any body-worn camera footage or any serious investigation. You know, it is interesting. This Agency, which is actively trying to arrest, detain, and deport thousands of people, meeting quotas set by Stephen Miller each day, the agents involved in this are not like your hometown police. They are not like your State police either.”
“In the last 2 weeks, two fatal shootings by ICE agents in Texas and Maine have thrust this government's tactics back into the spotlight. Earlier this month, ICE shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop in Houston. Mr. Araujo had lived in the country for more than 30 years and was not the intended target of the operation. He is survived by his children, who are U.S. citizens. Instead of investigating, the ICE agents detained the witnesses that were around the scene. The Harris County district attorney has said these witnesses are critical to the investigation, but they have been detained by the ICE agents. Last week, Joan Sebastian Guerrero was also shot and killed while in his vehicle in Maine. He is survived by his wife and their 3-year-old daughter, who will now grow up without a father.”
“They are people who work in common jobs every single day, who stood next to you in the line in the grocery store, and who were with you in the pew at church on Sunday. ``Worst of the worst'' didn't hold up at all. At its peak, tensions boiled over with the killing of two American citizens at that time. We saw it in real time and on videotape: Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota. After the public outcry, these ICE raids were quietly scaled back by the Trump administration and Stephen Miller. But now Stephen Miller, the President's domestic adviser, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Mullin are quietly resuming these efforts, with immigration arrests surging this month to the highest levels in this administration. I assume they felt that America just wouldn't notice that they were back in business, but we have.”
“He said it over and over and over again. Turns out that the ``worst of the worst'' didn't fit in that category at all. Who were they? Some were U.S. citizens, legal residents, and people with no prior criminal history whatsoever--none. The administration brutally carried out this political theater by deploying military-grade weapons and using overwhelming displays of force that left communities and our country on edge. I saw it firsthand in the city of Chicago: Operation Midway Blitz. In our Hispanic neighborhoods, people were afraid to come out to go to church, afraid to send their kids to school. Were these criminals who were harboring their children from going to school? Hardly.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4147-S4148] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, roughly a year ago, President Trump made good on his ``MASS DEPORTATION NOW!'' promise--it was a campaign pledge--when he unleashed ICE into cities across the country to carry out his brutal immigration crackdown. In its wake, including in the city of Chicago, the so-called ``worst of the worst''--remember? The President said he was going after those who were rapists, murderers, terrorists, criminally insane, and predators. The ``worst of the worst''--that is who we are going after.”
“I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.] YEAS--46 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NAYS--50 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Young NOT VOTING--4 Hagerty McConnell Murphy Wicker The motion was rejected.”
“Budd). On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 48, and the motion is agreed to. The motion was agreed to. ____________________”
“I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is neccessarily absent. The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Ex.] YEAS--49 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young NAYS--48 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murray Ossoff Padilla Paul Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--3 Hagerty McConnell Murphy The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.”
“The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions. (Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Kansas.”
“I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Ex.] YEAS--51 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young NAYS--46 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--3 Gallego McConnell McCormick The nomination was confirmed.”
“Yet again, we have another nominee who has been rewarded for his loyalty to the President with a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. ____________________”
“A closer look at the timeline suggests a different story. Judge Kuntz first discussed a possible judicial nomination with Senator Scott's office in November 2024, 2 months before he was assigned to this case. Judge Kuntz issued the majority opinion in Alexander on February 12, 2025, ruling in favor of President Trump. Eight days later, he was contacted by the White House regarding a potential nomination. In fact, Judge Kuntz discussed this case when he interviewed with the White House on February 28, just about 2 weeks after he issued his opinion. It's hard to believe that it is simply a coincidence that just 8 days after Judge Kuntz issued a ruling favorable to President Trump, he was contacted by the White House about a nomination and interviewed about it shortly thereafter.”
“Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jeffrey T. Kuntz to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. While Judge Kuntz was under consideration to fill a judicial vacancy, he was also presiding over Alexander v. Trump, in which he authored the majority opinion upholding a lower court's ruling that Trump's defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board could continue. Judge Kuntz declined to directly answer my question about whether he made the defendants in Alexander aware, while the case was pending, that he was being considered by the plaintiff for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Instead, Judge Kuntz argued that he was not under consideration for this nomination, claiming that he did not interview with the White House until 2 weeks after the case had been decided.”
“I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is necessarily absent. The yeas and the nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Ex.] YEAS--51 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young NAYS--46 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--3 Gallego McConnell McCormick The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.”
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote at noon now begin immediately. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“In fact, Judge Kuntz discussed this case when he interviewed with the White House on February 28, just about 2 weeks after he issued his opinion. It's hard to believe that it is simply a coincidence that just 8 days after Judge Kuntz issued a ruling favorable to President Trump, he was contacted by the White House about a nomination and interviewed about it shortly thereafter. Yet again, we have another nominee who has been rewarded for his loyalty to the President with a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. ____________________”
“Judge Kuntz declined to directly answer my question about whether he made the defendants in Alexander aware, while the case was pending, that he was being considered by the plaintiff for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Instead, Judge Kuntz argued that he was not under consideration for this nomination, claiming that he did not interview with the White House until 2 weeks after the case had been decided. A closer look at the timeline suggests a different story. Judge Kuntz first discussed a possible judicial nomination with Senator Scott's office in November 2024, 2 months before he was assigned to this case. Judge Kuntz issued the majority opinion in Alexander on February 12, 2025, ruling in favor of President Trump. Eight days later, he was contacted by the White House regarding a potential nomination.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4097] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Nomination of Jeffrey T. Kuntz Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jeffrey T. Kuntz to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. While Judge Kuntz was under consideration to fill a judicial vacancy, he was also presiding over Alexander v. Trump, in which he authored the majority opinion upholding a lower court's ruling that Trump's defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board could continue.”
“AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION PROGRAMS IN THE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND. Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2027 for Operation and Maintenance and available for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, as specified in the funding table in section 4301, $350,000,000 shall be available for additional international security cooperation programs in the area of responsibility of the United States European Command, of which $250,000,000 shall be available for the Baltic Security Initiative ______”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3970] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6692. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following: SEC. 1229A.”
“``(3) Consideration.--If Congress receives a report described in paragraph (2)(A)(i), Congress shall consider the recommendations and proposed legislative language pursuant to the process described in subsection (c), except that the dates described in such subsection and subsection (b) shall apply in the calendar year that such report is submitted.''. ____________________”
“``(2) Reports.-- ``(A) In general.--If a Social Security bill is enacted into law under this section, the following shall apply: ``(i) Mandatory reports.--If the Social Security Advisory Board receives a notice described in paragraph (1) during a covered year, the Social Security Advisory Board shall submit to Congress a report including recommendations and proposed legislative language that meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1). ``(ii) Discretionary reports.-- If the Social Security Advisory Board receives a notice described in paragraph (1) during a calendar that is not a covered year, the Social Security Advisory Board may submit to Congress a report described in clause (i). ``(B) Covered year defined.--In this paragraph, the term `covered year' means calendar year 2037 and every 10 years thereafter.”
“``(vi) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the Social Security bill, consideration on a veto message in either House under this section shall be limited to 1 hour equally divided between the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. ``(4) Suspension.--No motion to suspend the application of this subsection shall be in order in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. ``(d) Decennial Review.-- ``(1) Review.--If the Social Security Board of Trustees submits a report to Congress pursuant to section 201(c)(2) that finds that the Trust Funds are not able to pay 100 percent of scheduled benefits for a period of at least 50 years that begins on the date such report is submitted, the Social Security Board of Trustees shall notify the Social Security Advisory Board.”
“``(iv) Treatment of identical companion measures in either house.--If, following passage of a Social Security bill in one House, that House then receives an identical companion bill from the other House, the Social Security bill of the other House shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the Social Security bill in the House receiving the Social Security bill shall be considered to be the vote on passage of the Social Security bill received from the other House. ``(v) Treatment of different measures in either house.-- If, following passage of a Social Security bill in one House, that House then receives a Social Security bill from the other House that is different from the Social Security bill passed by that House, the Social Security bill passed by the other House shall be entitled to the floor procedures under this section.”
“``(ii) Procedure.--If a House that has not voted to proceed to a Social Security bill receives a Social Security bill passed by the other House-- [[Page S3946]] ``(I) the procedure in the House that has not voted to proceed to a Social Security bill shall be the same as if no such bill had been introduced in that House; and ``(II) the bill considered in that House shall be the Social Security bill of the other House. ``(iii) Treatment of social security bill of other house.-- If one House fails to introduce or consider a Social Security bill under this section, the Social Security bill of the other House shall be entitled to the floor procedures under this section.”
“``(ix) Adjournment.--If, by December 18, 2026, either House has failed to adopt a motion to proceed to the Social Security bill, paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(II) shall not apply. ``(C) Rules to coordinate action with other house.-- ``(i) Referral.--If, before the passage by one House of a Social Security bill of that House, that House receives from the other House a Social Security bill, then the Social Security bill of the other House shall not be referred to a committee and shall immediately be placed on the calendar.”
“Action on all other amendments shall be vitiated. ``(vii) Vote on passage.--Immediately following the conclusion of consideration of the Social Security bill, the vote on passage of the Social Security bill shall occur without any intervening action or motion, requiring an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. If the Social Security bill is passed, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall cause the bill to be transmitted to the Senate before the close of the next day of session of the House of Representatives. ``(viii) Vote.--The House Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that would have the effect of causing the Social Security bill to be approved by a vote of less than a majority of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.”
“Adoption of a substitute amendment shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An amendment described in this subclause is not divisible and no amendment to a substitute amendment shall be in order. All time used for consideration of any amendments described in this subclause shall come from the 100 hours of consideration described in clause (ii). ``(vi) Adoption of amendments.--If more than one of the amendments described in clause (v)(II) is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be engrossed as an amendment of the House. In the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes shall be engrossed as an amendment of the House.”
“``(bb) Extraneous provisions.--It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any substitute amendment to the Social Security bill that-- ``(AA) does not achieve long-term solvency for the Trust Funds; or ``(BB) includes provisions that do not change outlays, revenues, or financing with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II, the supplemental security income program under title XVI, or the related provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. ``(cc) Limit on debate.--Consideration of any amendment described in this subclause and any debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith shall be limited to 1 hour, equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader.”
“``(II) Substitute amendments.-- ``(aa) In general.--It shall be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any substitute amendment to the Social Security bill that, as determined by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (in consultation with the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration), achieves long-term solvency for the Trust Funds, with such determination to be submitted by the Chairman for printing in the Congressional Record. It shall be in order in the House of Representatives for the sponsor of a substitute amendment to make minor or technical modifications to such amendment.”
“``(iv) Application of house rules.--Except to the extent specifically provided in this subparagraph, consideration of a Social Security bill shall be governed by the Rules of the House of Representatives. It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any Social Security bill introduced pursuant to the provisions of this subsection under a suspension of the rules pursuant to Clause 1 of House Rule XV, or under a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules. ``(v) Restriction on amendments.-- ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), no amendment to the Social Security bill shall be in order in the House of Representatives. All points of order, including budgetary points of order, against the consideration of substitute amendments to the Social Security bill are waived.”
“All points of order, including budgetary points of order, against the Social Security bill and against its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the Social Security bill to its passage without intervening motion except 100 hours of consideration equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, and any motion to limit debate. A motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the Social Security bill shall not be in order. ``(iii) Appeals.--Appeals from decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the procedure relating to a Social Security bill shall be debatable for a period not to exceed 1 hour, to be divided equally between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader.”
“It shall also be in order for any Member of the House of Representatives to move to proceed to the consideration of the Social Security bill at any time after the conclusion of that period. All points of order, including budgetary points of order, against the motion to proceed to the Social Security bill are waived. Such a motion shall not be in order after the House of Representatives has disposed of a motion to proceed on the Social Security bill. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall not be debatable. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order. ``(ii) Consideration.--The Social Security bill shall be considered as read.”
“``(vii) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a Social Security bill shall be debatable for a period not to exceed 1 hour, to be divided equally between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. ``(B) Consideration in house of representatives.-- ``(i) Proceeding to consideration.--It shall be in order in the House of Representatives, not later than November 16, 2026, or the first day thereafter on which the House is in session, for the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives or the Majority Leader's designee, to move to proceed to the consideration of the Social Security bill.”
“Action on all other amendments shall be vitiated. ``(v) Vote on passage.--The vote on passage shall occur immediately following the conclusion of consideration of a Social Security bill, and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested. Passage shall require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. If the Social Security bill is passed, the Secretary of the Senate shall cause the bill to be transmitted to House of Representatives before the close of the next day of session of the Senate. ``(vi) Adjournment.--If, by December 18, 2026, either House has failed to adopt a motion to proceed to the Social Security bill, paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) shall not apply.”
“Adoption of a substitute amendment shall require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An amendment described in this subclause is not divisible and no amendment to a substitute amendment shall be in order. All time used for consideration of any amendments described in this subclause shall come from the 100 hours of consideration described in clause (ii). ``(iv) Adoption of amendments.--If more than one of the amendments described in clause (iii)(II) is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be engrossed as an amendment of the Senate. In the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes shall be engrossed as an amendment of the Senate.”