What: All Issues : Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad : Seniors : S. Con. Res. 23. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Procedural Vote to Uphold a Non-Binding Amendment Expressing the Sense of the Senate that the 1993 Tax Increase on Social Security Benefits, Which Disproportionately Impacts Low- Income Families, Should Be Repealed. (2003 senate Roll Call 101)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

S. Con. Res. 23. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Procedural Vote to Uphold a Non-Binding Amendment Expressing the Sense of the Senate that the 1993 Tax Increase on Social Security Benefits, Which Disproportionately Impacts Low- Income Families, Should Be Repealed.
senate Roll Call 101     Mar 25, 2003
Progressive Position:
Yea
Progressive Result:
Loss

During consideration of the 2004 budget resolution, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) offered an amendment expressing the "sense of the Senate" that the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits be repealed. Sense of the Senate amendments, unlike other amendments considered in the upper chamber, are non-binding resolutions (they lack the force of law). Unlike an earlier proposal by Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) (see Roll Call Vote 94), the Bayh amendment would have allowed the Senate significant leeway to repeal the tax increase using money allocated for tax cuts that is already contained in the budget resolution. The Bunning amendment, conversely, would have increased the overall amount of the tax cuts. Furthermore, the Bayh amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the conference committee-which is responsible for reconciling the House and Senate versions of the budget resolution-should not reduce funding for programs benefiting low-income families. Progressives supported the Bayh amendment because its non-binding language does not increase the amount provided in the budget resolution for tax cuts. The non-binding language contained in the Bayh amendment was subject to a point of order on the Senate floor on the grounds that the proposal was not germane, or relevant, to the debate on the budget resolution (under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, amendments to budget resolutions must be germane). A motion to override the point of order against the Bayh proposal is the subject of this vote; supporters of the Bayh's amendment voted in favor of the motion while opponents voted against it. Sixty votes are required to override a point of order which was not obtained and the Bayh amendment was defeated on a 49-50 vote.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name