Hozzl: Quincy Cox

Quincy Coxvoted against this!

S Bill 918 A bill to allow Federal employees who are involuntarily separated from Government service while serving a probationary or trial period to resume that period upon reinstatement, and for other purposes.Updated 1 day ago

Purpose and Summary

Chamber: Senate

Introduced date: 2025-03-10

Bill 119 s 918, also known as the "Probationary Period Protection Act," aims to provide protection for federal employees who are involuntarily separat...

ed from government service while serving a probationary or trial period. The bill allows these employees to resume their probationary period upon reinstatement, ensuring that they are given a fair chance to prove their abilities and suitability for the position. The bill seeks to address the vulnerability of federal employees who are terminated during their probationary period, often without due process or adequate justification. By allowing these employees to resume their probationary period upon reinstatement, the bill aims to prevent arbitrary dismissals and provide a more equitable process for evaluating their performance. In addition to reinstating the probationary period for involuntarily separated employees, the bill also includes provisions for other purposes. While the specific details of these provisions are not outlined in the summary, it is clear that the bill aims to protect the rights and interests of federal employees who are in probationary or trial periods. Overall, Bill 119 s 918 seeks to ensure that federal employees who are involuntarily separated from government service during their probationary period are given a fair opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities and suitability for the position. By reinstating their probationary period upon reinstatement, the bill aims to provide these employees with the protection and support they need to succeed in their roles.

Recent Activity

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Alternative Names

A bill to allow Federal employees who are involuntarily separated from Government service while serving a probationary or trial period to resume that period upon reinstatement, and for other purposes.

Associated Legislation

undefined

Policy Areas

undefined

Potential Impact

undefined

Sponsors and Supporters

Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

Cosponsors and Supporters

Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]

Committees and Subcommittees

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

Variations and Revisions

undefined

Quincy Coxcommented on this

DETERRENT Act

6 days ago

Recent Activity Alert

Bill 119 hr 1048, also known as the "Foreign Gift and Contract Disclosure Act," aims to make changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to enhance transparency and accountability in regards to foreign gifts and cont...

Quincy Coxliked this

S Bill 847 A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the employer-provided child care credit and the dependent care assistance exclusion.Updated 6 days ago

Purpose and Summary

Chamber: Senate

Introduced date: 2025-03-04

Bill 119 s 847, also known as the "Child Care Tax Credit Expansion Act," aims to make changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to increas...

e the benefits available to working parents for child care expenses. The bill proposes to expand both the employer-provided child care credit and the dependent care assistance exclusion. The employer-provided child care credit currently allows employers to receive a tax credit for providing child care services to their employees. This bill seeks to increase the maximum credit amount that employers can claim, making it more financially feasible for businesses to offer child care benefits to their employees. Additionally, the bill aims to expand the dependent care assistance exclusion, which allows employees to exclude a certain amount of employer-provided child care assistance from their taxable income. This would provide working parents with additional financial relief when it comes to covering the costs of child care. Overall, Bill 119 s 847 is focused on providing support to working parents by increasing the tax benefits available for child care expenses. By expanding both the employer-provided child care credit and the dependent care assistance exclusion, the bill aims to make child care more affordable and accessible for American families.

Recent Activity

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1499-1500)

Alternative Names

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the employer-provided child care credit and the dependent care assistance exclusion.

Associated Legislation

undefined

Policy Areas

undefined

Potential Impact

undefined

Sponsors and Supporters

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

Cosponsors and Supporters

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

Committees and Subcommittees

Finance Committee

Variations and Revisions

undefined

Quincy Coxcommented on this

SJRES Bill 28 A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications".Updated 2 days ago

Purpose and Summary

Chamber: Senate

Introduced date: 2025-02-27

Bill 119 SJRes 28 is a joint resolution that aims to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection regarding the definiti...

on of "larger participants" in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. The rule in question seeks to establish criteria for determining which companies qualify as larger participants in this market, which would subject them to additional regulations and oversight by the Bureau. Supporters of the resolution argue that the rule is overly broad and could potentially stifle innovation and competition in the digital payment industry. They believe that the criteria outlined in the rule are too vague and could result in unintended consequences for smaller companies operating in the market. Opponents of the resolution, on the other hand, argue that the rule is necessary to protect consumers and ensure that larger companies in the digital payment industry are held accountable for their actions. They believe that the criteria outlined in the rule are necessary to prevent potential abuses of power by larger participants in the market. Overall, the resolution has sparked a contentious debate in Congress, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressing strong opinions on the issue. It remains to be seen whether the resolution will ultimately be passed and the rule disapproved, or if the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will be allowed to move forward with its proposed regulations.

Recent Activity

Held at the Desk

Alternative Names

A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications".

Associated Legislation

undefined

Policy Areas

Finance and Financial Sector

Potential Impact

undefined

Sponsors and Supporters

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

Cosponsors and Supporters

Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]

Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Committees and Subcommittees

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

Variations and Revisions

Quincy Coxliked this

HR Bill 950 Saving Seniors Money on Prescriptions ActUpdated 9 days ago

Purpose and Summary

Chamber: House

Introduced date: 2025-02-04

Bill 119 HR 950, also known as the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reporting Act, aims to make changes to Medicare Part D by adding reporting requirements for...

pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in relation to prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MA-PD plans). The bill seeks to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that PBMs are transparent in their operations and provide detailed reports on their activities within Medicare Part D. This includes requiring PBMs to report information such as drug pricing, rebates, and any potential conflicts of interest that may arise. By implementing these reporting requirements, the goal is to increase transparency and accountability within the Medicare Part D program, ultimately leading to better oversight and potentially lower drug costs for beneficiaries. This bill is an important step towards ensuring that PBMs are held accountable for their actions and that Medicare beneficiaries receive the best possible care at an affordable price.

Recent Activity

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Alternative Names

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish pharmacy benefit manager reporting requirements with respect to prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans under Medicare part D.

Saving Seniors Money on Prescriptions Act

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish pharmacy benefit manager reporting requirements with respect to prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans under Medicare part D.