Senate panel advances bipartisan housing bill
The committee unanimously voted to advance the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act of 2025 — led by Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — in the committee's first bipartisan housing markup in more than a decade.
Scott touted the bipartisan effort and noted that it comes as senators' constituents, from all areas of the country, continue to point to housing access and affordability as a top economic concern of theirs.
'For far too long, Congress believed this problem was too big to solve. Today, we're taking not a step – but we're taking a leap in the right direction in a bipartisan fashion,' Scott said in remarks at the markup.
'Many people around the country are frustrated with the way we do American politics wonder, is there any issue that brings this nation together and I'm here to say, halleluiah! We have found one – it is housing. And halleluiah is a southern term, but it's a term of endearment.
The massive legislation contains proposals from every member of the committee. The bill includes incentives for states and cities to boost housing supply, and it rewards communities that do so while lowering building costs. The bill cuts much of the red tape around zoning and building standards and streamlines inspections across federal programs to improve efficiency. It also contains provisions to eliminate duplicate regulatory requirements.
The bill would instruct the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop a loan and grant program for certain homeowners and landlords to help address home repairs and health hazards, among other provisions.
'For years, the American people have called on their elected officials to act to reduce housing costs. The Scott-Warren legislation represents what is possible when both parties put families ahead of politics. It's a significant step in the right direction,' Warren said in her remarks.
'I'm happy today, but this is only a first step. Congress must do more. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues,' she continued, urging her colleagues to pass the legislation swiftly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad
The left is trying its best to stir up a furor over the recent Sydney Sweeney jeans (or is it genes) TV commercial to ignite a backlash similar to the Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Light debacle. Sorry progressives, it ain't happening. Yes, there's lots of chirping from lefty columnists, purple-haired TikTok influencers, late-night hosts who are still employed, and assorted wokesters after American Eagle had the audacity to feature the attractive blond, blue-eyed actress expressing her sartorial flair in a pair of tight-fitting blue jeans. Advertisement 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color . . . my jeans are blue,' the 'Euphoria' star says. The ad ends with a voice-over: 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.' Blond women? Blue-eyed? Good genes (I mean jeans)? Oh, the horror! That's if you are listening to the leftist commentariat that still hasn't piped down weeks after the spot first appeared. The lefties are freaking because they think the jeans company is looking to bring back the bad old days, pre-George Floyd of course, when white blond oppressors ruled over American culture. Advertisement It's all very Hitler-like to the progressive numbskull class, but not to just about every other segment of American society. Most Americans of all colors and genders either don't care, or they know good genes and jeans when they see it. I know this based on lots of reporting on the mind virus known wokeness — the progressive orthodoxy that embraces everything from cultural Marxism, DEI and, of course, the oppressor-oppressed theology. We are a diverse country, and that's good. The wokesters take it to a level that excludes rather than includes. Good-looking white people, particularly if their hair is that evil shade known as blond, are nowhere near the intersectional matrix they demand for hiring or image making in their version of America. Advertisement That's why Sydney Sweeney, known more for her cleavage than her politics, has become a touchstone in our culture wars, and here's why the attacks won't work: Wokeness was once big in the business world, but notice my use of the past tense. Corporate America listened to these kooks for many reasons, including their own progressive management leanings, with disastrous results. They learned the hard way that most Americans of all races hate being proselytized with political dogma, particularly of the left-wing variety that pushes the limits of identity and gender politics beyond cultural norms. I chronicled this spectacle with a healthy dose of schadenfreude in my book 'Go Woke Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America.' Just a few short years ago, DEI was the norm; so was radical environmentalism pushed by asset managers through something called ESG investing. It was difficult finding a straight man or woman — God forbid a blond — who survived the Madison Avenue woke censor machine. Budweiser thought its customers were ready for a commercial featuring a half-naked trans woman in a bubble bath. Disney decided it could sell more kids programming featuring same-sex kissing scenes. Money managers like BlackRock thought they could increase returns by advocating environmentalism and de facto racial quotas on their portfolio companies. Advertisement All of the above resulted in some of the biggest brand-destroying disasters in modern business history. Marketing is a lot like politics. It's a business of addition, not subtraction. You build customers just like you attract voters, through messaging that unites rather than divides — or customers flee. There are exceptions, of course. Niche brands like Ben & Jerry's ice cream attempt and succeed at targeting the tree-hugger demo. Try this stuff on a mass audience and you will get the beatdown of the century. The predictable customer revolt impacted the businesses of Budweiser, Disney and BlackRock in such a measurable way that shareholders revolted, too, forcing some of the most progressive CEOs in the world to course-correct. That's why the Sydney Sweeney uproar will go nowhere with the people who matter most: Most American consumers, and American Eagle shareholders. Unless you're stretching it like Silly Putty, there's nothing inherently political about a pretty blond (dare I say 'All American'-looking) woman in jeans and pointing out the health of her genes to sell stuff. Zero. Zilch. Otherwise, Pamela Anderson would have been a poster child for Aryan Nations instead of the 'Baywatch' babe most American men and many women adored, and still do. Shares of American Eagle are up since the Sydney Sweeney ad ran, despite the backlash. NYU Marketing Professor Eitan Muller points out the obvious, telling Fox Business's Teuta Dedvukaj that the commercial 'attracts attention, drives Google searches, and boosts the brand. Yes, she does have great genes — and it rings authentic. That's what you want from an ad.' My bet: You will be seeing a lot more of Sydney Sweeney. Most men will be rejoicing, many women will buy the company's jeans. Management will be rewarded with higher sales and a stock price that matches. The attacks will ultimately fail for the same reason Mulvaney's tenure as a spokeswoman for Bud Light was so short-lived. Recall: The nation's Number 1-selling beer dropped to Number 3 and never recovered. Sydney Sweeney has both good jeans and genes and there's nothing the wokesters can do to change that reality.
Los Angeles Times
6 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, from Laos to Brazil. And there were no real winners
WASHINGTON — President Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers — from small, poor countries such as Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty export taxes — tariffs — on the products they export to the U.S. starting Thursday. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that succumbed to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded — dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' — April 2 — when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after April announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually some of them did, acceding to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs to maintain their ability to sell to the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the U.K. for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low-single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening — 30% on the EU and 25% on Japan. Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt by a U.S. ally that China claims as its territory. 'Twenty percent from the beginning has not been our goal. We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei on Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral loss and inspiring a riot in the capital in 2023 — recalling Trump's role in the Jan. 6. insurrection two years earlier at the U.S. Capitol. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on long-standing U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his April 2 tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wends its way through the legal system, and may end up at the Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who typically pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all raised prices due to U.S. tariffs. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
6 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘No obvious frontrunner.' Why Harris' exit has scrambled the race for California governor
For months, candidates in the race to become California's next governor had waited for a pivotal question to be settled: Will former Vice President Kamala Harris run or not? With Harris' announcement this week that she's out, a new question arose: Who's the front-runner now? Because of Harris' star power, the answer is far from simple. For months, other candidates saw their campaign planning and fundraising undercut by the possibility she would run, meaning the race got a big reset seconds after Harris made her announcement Wednesday. Some political observers give the nod to former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, who appears to have a small leg up over her opponents. Porter was the only Democrat to receive double-digit support in multiple polls when Harris was not included in the field. A prodigious fundraiser while she was in Congress representing an Orange County district, Porter reported a strong infusion of cash in the months after launching her campaign in March, and said she raised $250,000 in the 36 hours after Harris' announcement. 'The enthusiasm we're seeing from donors at every level shows that Californians know how critical this race is,' Porter said in an email blast. Other candidates — including Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration and a former California attorney general — have also tried to assert that, with Harris out, they are moving up. 'BECERRA CAMPAIGN BUILDING MOMENTUM IN 'WIDE OPEN' RACE,' read the subject line of an email sent Friday by the Becerra campaign, saying he is 'well-positioned to unite a broad swath of voters around his plans to make health care and housing less expensive and more accessible.' Outside observers, however, said that none of the candidates really stand out from the pack at the moment. 'That these remaining candidates are jockeying for bragging rights about who may be the front-runner — it's to be expected, but it's ludicrous,' said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist who has worked on a number of past gubernatorial campaigns, including for former Gov. Gray Davis. 'With Harris opting out, there will likely be no obvious front-runner among the remainder of the current field for quite some time,' South said. 'None of these candidates start out with statewide name recognition.' With such a wide-open field, factors such as endorsements and communication strategies will be important to watch, experts said. So will the candidates' ability to raise money and use it to broaden their appeal. 'I would start spending money on social media, on television advertising, on every single platform I could find to build up my name ID,' South said, but 'none of them have enough money to do that at the moment.' With Harris out, will she back someone else? 'Obviously if she did endorse, that would be a big plus' for whichever candidate she rallied behind, said John Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. Harris has long relationships with several of the candidates in the race. A source familiar with her thinking told The Times after Harris bowed out that she was still considering whether and how to approach the governor's race. Other endorsements could affect the race as well. Hours after Harris announced her decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the influential former House Speaker, appeared on CNN to endorse Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, whom she has known for years. 'We have many great candidates, one in particular Eleni Tsakopoulos, whom I support,' Pelosi said, referring to Kounalakis by her maiden name. Kounalakis' father, the wealthy developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, helped bankroll an independent expenditure committee supporting his daughter's 2018 campaign for lieutenant governor. Political observers are watching to see if he dumps money into a similar effort backing her gubernatorial campaign. Pitney said Pelosi's opinion 'would carry a lot more weight' if she were still speaker. He said it 'isn't necessarily going to sway a large chunk of the electorate,' but could be important if it sways Bay Area donors. A former GOP legislative aide and national party staffer who renounced his membership in the Republican Party the night Trump was elected in 2016, Pitney said that endorsements are far from a determining factor in today's political landscape. 'I hesitate to rule anybody out, because very often candidates seem to come out of nowhere — like Mamdani in New York City,' he said, referring to the sudden rise and stunning upset primary win of 33-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in the New York mayoral race. Pitney added that experience in government and administrative leadership also matters, but could also cut against candidates at a time when many voters are frustrated and want something new. For example, Antonio Villaraigosa, the former state Assembly speaker and L.A. mayor who is in his 70s, 'obviously has a long history, but that long history is both an advantage and a disadvantage,' Pitney said. Villaraigosa has said his campaign is 'about the future.' But voters 'may not regard him as a fresh face,' Pitney said. None of the current candidates for governor have the same profile as Harris. In fact, they are broadly unknown to huge swaths of the electorate. That means they have their work cut out for them, Pitney and South said — namely in terms of fundraising. South said that there 'is no question that the Democratic donor base has basically been sitting on their haunches waiting to see what Harris is going to do.' But, he said, he hasn't seen any sign yet that donors have picked a favorite candidate now that she's out, either — which is a problem for candidates with little or no name recognition. 'None of these candidates in the remaining field with Harris out have enough money in the bank to run a statewide campaign for governor,' he said. South said that could change if Kounalakis gets another major infusion of cash from her father and once again taps her personal wealth. At the same time, there could also be a 'huge blowback' from that sort of splashy family spending, South said, especially if Kounalakis' opponents pounced on it as distasteful. 'We have not tended in this state to elect moneyed people who try to buy the governor's race,' he said. South said he is watching to see if big Bay Area donors decide to back Porter 'because of her profile as a progressive.' Los Angeles developer and 2022 mayoral candidate Rick Caruso 'could be a force' if he were to enter the race, Pitney said, because 'he has prominence in Southern California and also has a lot of money.' The most recent fundraising reports, which were due Thursday night, shine a light on candidates' coffers — but only through the end of June, well before Harris dropped out. The Democrats who do not have the potential to self-fund their campaigns reported having millions of dollars in cash on hand as of June 30, including some who transferred money from prior campaign committees to their gubernatorial accounts. Former legislative leader Toni Atkins reported having $4.3 million in the campaign, while raising $648,000 and spending $549,000 in the first six months of this year. Villaraigosa raised $1.1 million and spent $550,000 this year, but reported $3.3 million cash on hand based on fundraising he did last year. Becerra had $2.1 million in the bank after raising $2.5 million and spending $449,000 in the first six months of the year. Porter reported raising $2.5 million and spending $449,000 since launching her campaign in March. She said she has $2.1 million in the bank. Unlike the other candidates, Porter's campaign revealed her fundraising because her filing on the state disclosure website didn't show any dollar figures. Spokesman Nathan Click said her number of small-dollar donors crashed the state's system, and that they had been working with state officials to get the documents displayed on the secretary of state's website all day Friday. He said most of Porter's 34,000 donors contributed less than $200 each. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco reported raising $1.6 million and spending $609,000 this year, leaving him with $1 million in the bank. A few candidates reported mediocre fundraising numbers, but have personal wealth they can draw on. Kounalakis raised just over $100,000 and spent nearly three times as much during the first half of this year. She has more than $4.6 million on hand and millions more in her lieutenant governor campaign account, although some of that money can't be transferred because of campaign finance rules. Businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, a Los Angeles Democrat, raised about $160,000 and spent $1.5 million — including more than $1 million on consultants. He had about $729,000 on hand at the end of the period. He also said he made a $10-million contribution Friday that he said 'turbocharged' his campaign. 'One of my many advantages is that I'm not a politician and I am not compromised,' Cloobeck said. Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate, raised about $1.5 million, of which $200,000 was a personal loan. Hilton spent about $1 million and has a little less than $800,000 in the bank. At the lowest end of the fundraising were former state controller Betty Yee, who raised almost $238,000 and spent $255,000, with $637,000 on hand; and state schools superintendent Tony Thurmond, who raised about $70,000, spent about $180,000 and had almost $560,000 on hand. Both Yee and Thurmond told The Times last month that fundraising had slowed while Democratic donors waited on Harris to make a decision.
