<img src="https://ws.zoominfo.com/pixel/Gp2oBIDg9xlCLu0ZPKB4" width="1" height="1" style="display: none;">

Policy Pulse 7.10.23

Introduction

Causes - powered by Countable - provide millions of advocates an intuitive understanding of pending legislation and streamlines the communication process with lawmakers, enabling advocates to influence voting decisions effectively. Advocates can also sound off on issues of national, local, or personal importance: policy, news, campaigns, and more. 

As the only advocacy software to also run a community that consistently engages, Causes gives Countable a unique perspective. We get first-hand insights into what advocates think about and discuss, and we're passing these insights on to you. 

In this weeks policy pulse, we’ve gathered the latest bills advocates are talking about as well as highlighting comments from the advocates themselves.

Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Stat linkedin graphic (Twitter Post) (Twitter Post) (LinkedIn Post) (LinkedIn Post) (1200 × 400 px) (9)

BILL PASSED: Do You Support Cost of Living Benefits For Veterans? - Veteran's COLA Act - S.777

The Bill

S.777- Veteran's COLA Act

Bill Details

  • Introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) on March 14, 2023
  • Sen. Tester is the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman
  • Committee: Senate - Veterans' Affairs
  • Became law on June 14, 2023 - Public Law No: 118-6

Bill Overview 

  • The bipartisan legislation is an annual procedure for Congress, but it is vital in ensuring that veterans' benefits keep pace with inflationary costs.
  • As of Dec. 1, the bill increases the rate of compensation for veterans with service-related injuries and indemnity compensation for the family members of the survivors of specific service-related injuries.
  • The bill increases amounts payable for clothing allowances for certain disabled veterans. Veterans can expect to see higher benefit payments starting in Jan. 2024.
  • To stay informed, subscribe to the #VetResources newsletter.

What's in the bill?

A bipartisan bill to support veterans

  • With costs of living rising, the bill provides compensation adjustments to support disabled veterans to meet their needs.

Brings benefits to the cost of living adjustment for Social Security

  • The 2024 benefits will be equal to those applied to Social Security benefits, as determined by the Social Security Administration.

Benefits based on the Consumer Price Index

  • The exact amount of next year's adjustment has not been determined.
  • The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures the average change in prices of goods and services due to inflation.
  • The adjustment in Jan. 2023, for instance, which Veterans are currently receiving, saw an 8.7% increase over the year prior.

What advocates are saying:

Yes.

We like to give lip service to our veterans, but we need if we are going to continue with a voluntary military provide housing for them and their families! Housing that is first rate, not some of the junk that we are now providing! The military and their families should never ever have to go to a food shelf to provide for their families! 

Glad this passed.

I'm fine with COLA for all federal benefits, including for veterans. In a time of inflation, there's no reason those relying on the government for income or assistance should struggle. This is the richest country in the world, and our veterans deserve the best pension and healthcare.

I'm glad this passed.

Yes!!

Please take care of the men and women who risk their lives to serve and protect the rest of us. I am the wife of a veteran who has deployed 13 times since the Gulf War. He struggles daily from injuries endured during his service. He should not have to fight for COLA. He's earned it!

YES!!!!

 These women and men provided a service to this country and should be provided with adequate benefits that demonstrate our gratitude for their service.

I support.

Historically we have shortchanged our vets. We reward and cheer athletes and entertainers with millions of dollars, but those we send in harms way to defend our country, we quibble over providing them a minimal existence.

 

Undecided.

I wonder if those young folks recognize a few of the dangers possible if they venture out beyond the IRL friends.

Also, what about online bullying? 

I support this bill.

I support parental approval requirements, but ultimately this should be up to the parents.

Why is the government continually trying to tell parents what to do in raising children?

Maybe.

 Decision should be the parents but every device & app should have adequate parental controls to enforce and provide surveillance on use to parents.

Yes.

I support this as long as it still allows healthy access for our kids. They should be able to interact with each other in positive uplifting 

No. I'm opposed.

Isn't this supposed to be called Being A Parent?

 


Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Stat linkedin graphic (Twitter Post) (Twitter Post) (LinkedIn Post) (LinkedIn Post) (1200 × 400 px) (10)

BILL: Should We Fight Executive Overreach? - REINS Act of 2023 - H.R.277

The Bill

H.R.277 - The REINS ACT - The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023

Bill Status

  • Introduced by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) on Jan. 11, 2023
  • The lead sponsor is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
  • Committees: House- Judiciary; Rules; Budget
  • House: Passed
  • Senate: Received on June 20, 2023 - Not yet voted
  • President: Not yet signed

Bill Overview

  • The REINS Act would require congressional approval for any proposed federal agency rule with an economic impact of $100 million or more.
  • It puts decision-making power in the hands of elected representatives and reclaims legislative power from unelected agencies. 
  • The bill would preserve Congress’ authority to disapprove of a “nonmajor rule” through a joint resolution.

What's in the Bill?

Proposes that major regulations need Congress' approval

  • When a federal agency proposes a major regulation, the bill says it will need to submit the regulation to Congress for approval.
  • Both the House and the Senate would have to pass a joint resolution of approval. If the resolution fails, the regulation will not go into effect.

Places decision-making in the hands of elected representatives

Defines major rules

  • The REINS Act defines a “major rule” as any federal rule or regulation that will have an annual effect on the economy exceeding $100 million.
  • The designation will also apply to regulations that will lead to a major increase in prices for consumers, individual industries, government industries, or geographic regions.
  • It will apply to regulations that have a significant negative impact on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

What advocates are saying:


Yes.

Any regulations which adversely affect citizens should be voted on by elected representatives, not randomly enacted by faceless agencies which have no real accountability or oversight.

Bad idea!

Making all rules and regulations instituted by our administrative and regulatory agencies obtain the approval of the most dysfunctional branch of our government is insane! 

 

More performative action by the GOP

More performative action by the GOP, along with hearings that produced nothing but sound bites for right wing news. Got one house Democratic Party vote, though, from Maine. They continue to demonstrate the inability to produce anything, but happy to take credit for legislation they voted against. 

Oppose.

Senators,

We oppose HR 277 and most strongly ask you to reject it. 

Thanks!

 

Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Stat linkedin graphic (Twitter Post) (Twitter Post) (LinkedIn Post) (LinkedIn Post) (1200 × 400 px) (11)

BILL: Should Kids Be Banned From Social Media? - The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act

The Bill

The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act

The Sponsors

  • The bipartisan bill is sponsored by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Katie Britt (R-AL).
  • The sponsoring senators argue that the existing federal children's privacy law, COPPA, is too difficult to enforce.

Bill Overview

  • The bipartisan bill would ban children under 13 from using popular social media sites and apps like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and more, effectively creating a national minimum age.
  • Children would still be able to view content on the sites without logging in but would not be able to create accounts or interact with other users.
  • Teens under 18 would need parental consent to utilize social media sites.
  • The legislation would put in place an age verification scheme to make it harder for kids to bypass the restrictions.

What's in the bill?

Social media ban for children under 13

Age verification system

  • The bill seeks to establish a government-run age verification program that can verify children's ages and their parents' identities via third-party verification sites.
  • The federal age verification program would be administered by the Department of Commerce and would, as of now, be voluntary.
  • Tech companies could also create an in-house age verification system under the bill.

Parental permission required for teens 13-18

  • The bill would require tech companies to get parents' explicit consent before creating accounts for teens under the age of 18.
  • Parents would be allowed to monitor their teens' accounts.

Restrictions on targeted ads and content

Addresses the teen mental health crisis

"As adults, how many of you have struggled with what someone has posted on social media, or what someone has said or what someone has done?" 

What advocates are saying:

Undecided.

I wonder if those young folks recognize a few of the dangers possible if they venture out beyond the IRL friends.

Also, what about online bullying? 

I support this bill.

I support parental approval requirements, but ultimately this should be up to the parents.

Why is the government continually trying to tell parents what to do in raising children?

Maybe.

 Decision should be the parents but every device & app should have adequate parental controls to enforce and provide surveillance on use to parents.

Yes.

I support this as long as it still allows healthy access for our kids. They should be able to interact with each other in positive uplifting 

No. I'm opposed.

Isn't this supposed to be called Being A Parent?