PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S13711)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 1, 2007
Honors the sacrifice of those born in the "notch" years of 1917 through 1926.
Recognizes the differences in Social Security benefits calculated for those born in 1917 and the years following, as compared with those born between 1911 and 1916.
Expresses regret that there has been no resolution to the satisfaction of millions of seniors born from 1917 through 1926.
Calls for corrective legislation similar to bills introduced in the Senate in the 105th through 108th Congresses to address the "notch" benefit disparity.
People & committees
Sen. Coleman, Norm [R-MN] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S13711)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.Res.363 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.Res.363 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.Res.363 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.Res.363 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.