House taking key vote on Trump's "big, beautiful bill," after GOP holdouts threaten final passage
It remains unclear if House Republicans have enough support to get the current version of the bill — which squeaked through the Senate on Tuesday — over the finish line. Before voting on final passage, the House needs to vote on a resolution setting the rules of debate for the bill. That crucial procedural vote began Wednesday at around 9:30 p.m., after lawmakers spent much of the day huddling amongst themselves and with President Trump to sway skeptical members.
While voting on the rule was underway, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters, "we feel very good about where we are." The Louisiana Republican called Wednesday a "long, productive day."
"We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly before voting began.
House GOP leaders are aiming to move ahead quickly on the signature legislation of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda, which includes ramped-up spending for border security, defense and energy production and extends trillions of dollars in tax cuts, partially offset by substantial cuts to health care and nutrition programs.
But some House Republicans, who voted to pass an earlier version of the bill in May, are unhappy with the Senate's changes.
Potential holdouts, including moderates and members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, met with Mr. Trump on Wednesday as the White House put pressure on House Republicans to get the bill across the finish line. One lawmaker called the meetings "very productive." But GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told reporters earlier Wednesday that he expected the procedural vote to fail in the afternoon.
In a possible sign of movement, one key Republican, Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson, announced on X Wednesday evening that he'd support the bill. It "isn't perfect, but it's the best we'll get," he wrote, adding that he would support the rule and final passage. Davidson was one of two Republicans who voted against the bill when the House first voted on the measure in May.
The president kept up the pressure, posting on Truth Social about June's low border crossing statistics and adding, "All we need to do is keep it this way, which is exactly why Republicans need to pass "THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL."
Immigration agents "need more help and, they are counting on Republicans to, GET IT DONE," Mr. Trump wrote.
Several members on both sides of the aisle had their flights canceled or delayed by bad weather as they raced back to Washington for the vote, delaying the process. All the Democrats appeared to be on hand for proceedings by Wednesday afternoon. Republicans can only afford three defections if all members are present and voting.
The House Rules Committee advanced the Senate's changes to the bill overnight, setting up the action on the floor. GOP Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas joined Democrats on the panel to oppose the rule. Both are among the group of hardliners who are likely to oppose the procedural vote in the full House.
"What the Senate did is unconscionable," Norman said. "I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor until we get it right."
Hours later, Norman returned to the Capitol following a meeting with Mr. Trump and other House Republicans. He described the meeting as "very productive" but didn't say whether he will ultimately vote yes, telling reporters he's still trying to learn more about how the bill will be implemented if it passes.
Johnson has spent weeks pleading with his Senate counterparts not to make any major changes to the version of the bill that passed the lower chamber by a single vote in May. He said the Senate bill's changes "went a little further than many of us would've preferred."
The Senate-passed bill includes steeper Medicaid cuts, a higher increase in the debt limit and changes to the House bill's green energy policies and the state and local tax deduction.
Other controversial provisions that faced pushback in both chambers, including the sale of public lands in nearly a dozen states, a 10-year moratorium on states regulating artificial intelligence and an excise tax on the renewable energy industry, were stripped from the Senate bill before heading back to the House.
Johnson said Wednesday that "we are working through everybody's issues and making sure that we can secure this vote" amid the opposition. He added that he and the president are working to "convince everybody that this is the very best product that we can produce."
"I feel good about where we are and where we're headed," Johnson added.
Harris told reporters Wednesday that that the president should call the Senate back into town to come to an agreement on changes to the bill. GOP leaders, however, said the House would vote on the Senate bill "as-is."
Should the House make changes to the bill, the revisions would require the Senate's approval, or force the two chambers to go to conference committee to iron out a final product that the two bodies could agree on, jeopardizing the bill's timely passage.
Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican, seemed optimistic after the White House meetings with holdouts Wednesday, saying "Donald Trump is a closer" and adding that "members are moving to yes."
"I know there are some members who think they're going to vote no right now," the South Dakota Republican said. "I think when the choice becomes failure or passage, they're going to understand that passage beats the hell out of failing."
GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina likewise urged House Republicans to get the bill to the president's desk Wednesday.
"President Trump has his pen in hand and is waiting for the House to complete its work," Foxx said. "We've championed this legislation for months, have guided it through the appropriate processes, and now we're on the one-yard line."
Meanwhile, with few levers to combat the bill's passage, House Democrats spoke out forcefully against the legislation.
"We will not stand by and watch Trump and his billionaire friends destroy this country without putting up one hell of a fight," Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said, calling the bill a "massive betrayal of the American people."
Jeffries said that "every single House Democrat will vote 'hell no' against this one, big ugly bill," while adding that "all we need are four House Republicans to join us in defense of their constituents who will suffer mightily from this bill." Democratic leaders called out some Republicans by name, including Reps. Rob Bresnahan and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim of California.
"It's unconscionable, it's unacceptable, it's un-American, and House Democrats are committing to you that we're going to do everything in our power to stop it," Jeffries said. "All we need are four Republicans, just four."
, , and contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Insider Alert: Amazon Exec Offloads Shares Worth Over Half a Million
July 4 - Douglas J. Herrington, Amazon's Senior Vice President and head of Worldwide Stores, sold 2,500 shares worth $550,144 on July 1, according to a Form 4 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The sales, executed under a pre?arranged Rule 10b5?1 plan set up on Nov. 7, 2024, ranged from $219.17 to $220.90 per share. Market watchers say the move appears driven by routine portfolio rebalancing rather than any fresh company insight. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Sign with AMZN. (NASDAQ:AMZN) stock ticked up about 2% on Thursday, closing at $223.41, hovering near its 52?week midpoint. The e?commerce powerhouse has delivered roughly a 13% gain over the past year, underpinned by $650.3 billion in trailing?twelve?month revenue. Post?sale, Herrington still directly controls 514,550 shares and holds another 6,592.5 through Amazon's 401(k) plan, signaling sustained faith in the retailer's growth story. Investors will keep a close eye on insider trades and the upcoming Q2 earnings report later this month to see if executive moves hint at broader sentiment inside the world's largest online marketplace. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California just showed that a better Democratic Party is possible
California just demolished a major obstacle to housing construction within its borders — and provided Democrats with a blueprint for better governance nationwide. On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a pair of housing bills into law. One exempts almost all urban, multifamily housing developments from California's environmental review procedures. The second makes it easier for cities to change their zoning laws to allow for more homebuilding. Both these measures entail restricting the reach of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a law that requires state and local governments to research and publicize the ecological impacts of any approved construction project. Individuals and groups can then sue to block these developments on the grounds that the government underestimated the project's true environmental harms. At first glance, these events might seem irrelevant to anyone who is neither a Californian nor a massive nerd. But behind the Golden State's esoteric arguments over regulatory exemptions lie much larger questions — ones that concern the fundamental aims and methods of Democratic policymaking. Namely: Is increasing the production of housing and other infrastructure an imperative of progressive politics that must take precedence over other concerns? Should Democrats judge legislation by how little it offends the party's allied interest groups or by how much it advances the general public's needs (as determined by technocratic analysis)? In making it easier to build urban housing — despite the furious objections of some environmental groups and labor unions — California Democrats put material plenty above status quo bias, and the public's interests above their party's internal harmony. Too often in recent decades, Democrats have embraced the opposite priorities. And this has led blue cities and states to suffer from exceptionally large housing shortages while struggling to build public infrastructure on time and on budget. As a result, Democratic states have been bleeding population — and thus, electoral clout — to Republican ones while the public sector has fallen into disrepute. California just demonstrated that Democrats don't need to accept these failures. Acquiescing to scarcity — for the sake of avoiding change or intraparty tension — is a choice. Democrats can make a different one. Critics of California's CEQA reforms didn't deny their state needs more housing. It might therefore seem fair to cast the debate over those reforms as a referendum on the importance of building more homes. But the regulatory regime that the opponents of CEQA reform sought to preserve is the byproduct of an explicitly anti-development strain of progressivism, one that reoriented Democratic politics in the 1970s. The postwar decades' rapid economic progress yielded widespread affluence, ecological degradation, and disruptive population growth. Taken together, these forces spurred a backlash to building: Affluence led liberal reformers to see economic development as less of a priority, environmental decay prompted fears that humanity was swiftly exhausting nature's bounty, and the swift growth of booming localities led some longtime residents to fear cultural alienation or displacement. California was ground zero for this anti-growth backlash, as historian Yoni Appelbaum notes in his recent book Stuck. The state's population quintupled between 1920 and 1970. And construction had largely kept pace, with California adding nearly 2 million units in the 1950s alone. As a result, in 1970, the median house in California cost only $197,000 in today's dollars. But millions of new people and buildings proved socially disruptive and ecologically costly. Many Californians wished to exclude newcomers from their towns or neighborhoods, so as to preserve their access to parking, the aesthetic character of their area, or the socioeconomic composition of their schools, among other concerns. And anti-growth progressivism provided both a high-minded rationalization for such exclusion and legal tools with which to advance it. In 1973, consumer advocate Ralph Nader and his team of researchers prepared a report on land-use policy in California. Its overriding recommendation was that the state needed to make it easier for ordinary Californians to block housing construction. As one of the report's authors explained at a California Assembly hearing, lawmakers needed to guard against both 'the overdevelopment of the central cities' and 'the sprawl around the cities,' while preserving open land. As Appelbaum notes, this reasoning effectively forbids building any housing, anywhere. The California Environmental Quality Act emerged out of this intellectual environment. And green groups animated by anti-developed fervor quickly leveraged CEQA to obstruct all manner of housing construction, thereby setting judicial precedents that expanded the law's reach. The effect has been to greatly increase the amount of time and money necessary for producing a housing unit in California. Local agencies take an average of 2.5 years to approve housing projects that require an Environmental Impact Report. Lawsuits can then tie up those projects in court for years longer. Over the past decade, CEQA litigation has delayed or blocked myriad condo towers in urban centers, the construction of new dormitories at the University of California Berkeley (on the grounds that the state's environmental impact statement failed to account for noise pollution), and even a bike lane in San Francisco. CEQA is by no means the primary — let alone, the only — reason why the median price of a California home exceeded $900,000 in 2023. But it is unquestionably a contributor to such scarcity-induced unaffordability. Refusing to amend the law in the face of a devastating housing shortage is a choice, one that reflects tepid concern for facilitating material abundance. Anti-growth politics left an especially large mark on California. But its influence is felt nationwide. CEQA is modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act, which enables the litigious to obstruct housing projects across the United States. And many blue states — including Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York — have their own state-level environmental review laws, which have also deterred housing development. In sum, California Democrats' decision to pare back the state's environmental review procedures, so as to facilitate more urban housing, represents a shift in the party's governing philosophy — away from a preoccupation with the harms of development and toward a greater sensitivity to the perils of stasis. Indeed, Newsom made this explicit in his remarks on the legislation, saying, 'It really is about abundance.' Democrats elsewhere should make a similar ideological adjustment. If anti-growth progressivism helped birth CEQA's excesses, Democrats' limited appetite for intraparty conflict sustained the law's defects. In recent years, the Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) movement has built an activist infrastructure for pro-development reform. And their cause has been buttressed by the energetic advocacy of myriad policy wonks and commentators. One of this year's best-selling books, Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, is dedicated in no small part to making the case against California's housing policies. Nevertheless, environmental organizations and labor unions have long boasted far greater scale and influence than 'pro-abundance' groups. And past efforts to curtail CEQA's reach have attracted vigorous opposition from some greens and unions. Democrats typically responded by scaling back their reform ambitions to better appease those constituencies. The hostility of green groups and the building trades to CEQA reform is as much instrumental as ideological. Some environmentalists retain the de-growth impulses that characterized the 1970s left. But environmental review lawsuits are also the stock and trade of many green organizations. CEQA litigation provides these groups with a key source of leverage over ecologically irresponsible developers and — for environmental law firms — a vital source of billings. The building trades unions, meanwhile, see CEQA as a tool for extracting contracts from housing developers. Such groups have made a practice of pursuing CEQA lawsuits against projects until the builders behind them commit to using union labor. For these reasons, many environmentalists and labor leaders fiercely condemned this week's CEQA reforms. At a hearing in late June, a representative of Sacramento-Sierra's Building and Construction Trades Council told lawmakers that their bill 'will compel our workers to be shackled and start singing chain gang songs.' Roughly 60 green groups published a letter condemning the legislation as a 'backroom Budget Trailer Bill deal that would kill community and environmental protections, even as the people of California are faced with unprecedented federal attacks to their lives and livelihoods.' The opposition of these organizations was understandable. But it was also misguided, even from the standpoint of protecting California's environment and aiding its construction workers. The recently passed CEQA bills did not weaken environmental review for the development of open land, only for multifamily housing in dense urban areas. And facilitating higher rates of housing development in cities is vital for both combating climate change and conserving untouched ecosystems. All else equal, people who live in apartment buildings by mass transit have far smaller carbon footprints than those who live in suburban single-family homes. And increasing the availability of housing in urban centers reduces demand for new exurban housing development that eats into open land. Meanwhile, eroding regulatory obstacles to housing construction is in the interest of skilled tradespeople as a whole. A world where more housing projects are economically viable is one where there is higher demand for construction labor. This makes CEQA reform unambiguously good for the 87 percent of California construction workers who do not belong to a union (and thus, derive little direct benefit from the building trades CEQA lawsuits). But policies that grow California's construction labor force also provide its building trades unions with more opportunities to recruit new members. Recognition of that reality led California's carpenters' union to back the reforms. Therefore, if Democrats judged those reforms on the basis of their actual consequences — whether for labor, the environment, or the housing supply — they would conclude that the policies advanced progressive goals. On the other hand, if they judged the legislation by whether it attracted opposition from left-coded interest groups, then they might deem it a regressive challenge to liberal ideals. Too often, Democrats in California and elsewhere have taken the latter approach, effectively outsourcing their policy judgment to their favorite lobbies. But this time, the party opted to prioritize the public interest over coalitional deference. Importantly, in doing so, California Democrats appeared to demonstrate that their party has more capacity to guide its stakeholders than many realized. In recent years, Democratic legislators have sometimes credited their questionable strategic and substantive decisions to 'the groups' — as though the party were helplessly in thrall to its advocacy organizations. But these groups typically lack significant political leverage. Swing voters do not take their marching orders from environmental organizations. And in an era of low union density and education polarization, the leaders of individual unions often can't deliver very many votes. This does not mean that Democrats should turn their backs on environmentalism or organized labor. To the contrary, the party should seek to expand collective bargaining rights, reduce pollution, and promote abundant low-carbon energy. But it should do those things because they are in the interests of ordinary Americans writ large, not because the electoral influence of green groups or building trades unions politically compel them to do so. Of course, all else equal, the party should seek to deliver victories to organizations that support it. But providing such favors should not take precedence over advancing the general public's welfare. And pushing back on a group's demands will rarely cause it to abandon your party entirely. After seeing that Democrats would not abandon CEQA reform, California's Building Trades Council switched its position on the legislation to 'neutral,' in exchange for trivial concessions. It is important not to overstate what California Democrats have accomplished. Housing construction in the Golden State is still constrained by restrictive zoning laws, various other land-use regulations, elevated interest rates, scarce construction labor, and a president who is hellbent on increasing the cost of lumber and steel. Combine these constraints on housing supply with the grotesque income inequalities of cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, and you get a recipe for a sustained housing crunch. CEQA reform should reduce the cost and timelines of urban homebuilding. But it will not, by itself, render California affordable. Democrats cannot choose to eliminate all of blue America's scarcities overnight. What they can do is prize the pursuit of material abundance over the avoidance of disruptive development and intraparty strife. And California just provided the party with a model for doing precisely that.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Photos of protests and celebrations mark a different Fourth of July for many Americans
The Fourth of July is a celebration of all things American with parades, backyard barbecues and the night sky lit up with fireworks. This Independence Day may feel different for many Americans. Around the country, there are protests planned against Trump's polices, and in places like Southern California, where immigration raids have rattled communities , some July Fourth celebrations were canceled. But beyond the festivities and protests lies a moment in history: On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies' break from British rule. ___ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
