Senate Passes 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) 87-8, Rejects War Powers Resolution and Immigration Appeals Rule Disapproval

The case for

Senator Warren emphasized that the bill is a historic, bipartisan effort to address America's housing crisis by boosting supply, lowering costs, and stopping private equity from buying up single-family homes. She highlighted provisions removing regulatory barriers, streamlining environmental reviews, rewarding communities for building more housing, making manufactured housing cheaper, creating an innovation fund, improving rural housing programs, and strengthening CDBG and HOME programs. Senator Schumer lauded the bill as a "very important and good, strong first step" to making housing more affordable, noting its efforts to tackle local zoning, promote manufactured housing, revitalize blighted properties, and prevent institutional investors from squeezing out homebuyers. He stressed that lowering housing costs is essential to ending the affordability crisis.

The case against

No opposition to the bill's passage was aired in the Record, though 8 Senators voted against it.

The case for

Senator Warnock argued that the war in Iran was a "failed war" that cost tens of billions of dollars, led to soaring gas prices, and resulted in 13 American servicemembers killed, without achieving its stated goals. He stressed that the President launched the war without congressional authorization and that the current "fragile, temporary truce" is an opportune moment for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority to declare war. Senator Baldwin stated the conflict was an "illegal war" and "unnecessary," emphasizing the human and economic costs to American families. Senator Schiff criticized the administration's shifting rationales for the war and its failure to deliver on promises of a quick end, arguing that Congress must act to bring troops home and prevent future unauthorized conflicts. Senator Kaine highlighted the war's illegality and unwisdom, noting the tearing up of a diplomatic deal and the economic burden on Americans, urging a vote during the "intermission" of the conflict to ensure future congressional consultation.

The case against

Senator Risch argued that the resolution was unnecessary because U.S. Armed Forces were "not engaged in hostilities within or against Iran" at the time. He further contended that if the resolution were to pass, it would undermine ongoing negotiations for a peace agreement, stating, "if that miracle happened, do you think Iran would sign the deal that has been negotiated? Of course not." He characterized the proponents as "trying to help the Iranians" and giving "tremendous aid and comfort to our enemy."

The case for

Senator Kaine argued that the Trump administration's regulation dramatically limits immigration appeals by shrinking the appeal period from 30 days to 10 days and allowing for summary dismissals without a full record. He stated this undermines due process, especially in asylum and deportation cases, which often involve family separation. He emphasized that an effective appeals process is crucial to correct mistakes in momentous immigration decisions. Senator Durbin echoed these concerns, calling the rule an attempt to end judicial independence and dismantle due process, linking it to the administration's broader "war against immigrants" and its efforts to deport DACA recipients.

The case against

No opposition was aired in the Record to the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 190.

The case for

Senator Schumer argued that S. 4791 was necessary to permanently ban Donald Trump's proposed "$2 billion taxpayer-funded MAGA slush fund" and his family's "sweetheart tax fraud deal with the IRS." He cited Trump's own statements calling the fund "a great idea" and asserted that Republicans' refusal to outlaw it demonstrated their prioritization of Trump over American taxpayers and working families. He characterized the fund as a form of "corruption's cost" and "nonstop grifting."

The case against

Senator Hagerty objected, stating that the President had already made it clear he would not seek compensation from the fund and that the Acting Attorney General had testified under oath that the fund was "dead." He accused Democrats of having a "deeper and much darker motive" to "erase the Biden Justice Department's unprecedented weaponization" by abolishing means of accountability. He cited instances of alleged DOJ targeting of Trump supporters, Republican Senators, and pro-life demonstrators, arguing that the bill was an unconstitutional, hypocritical attempt to invalidate a specific settlement agreement.

The case for

Senator Tuberville argued that college sports are in crisis due to unrestricted transfers and NIL, leading to constant roster turnover, reduced academic focus, and fewer opportunities for high school athletes. He proposed a simple fix: 5 consecutive years of eligibility (5 seasons) and one penalty-free transfer, with subsequent transfers requiring a year of sitting out. He asserted that this would restore stability, encourage academic success, and prevent the system from becoming a "mini NFL." He criticized other proposals for being too complex and involving the federal government too deeply in college sports operations.

The case against

Senator Cantwell objected, arguing that Senator Tuberville's bill was insufficient to address the broader crisis in college sports, which includes issues of athlete rights, health, safety, and the need for revenue for non-revenue sports. She stated that the bill would leave athletes vulnerable by failing to establish federal law on NIL rights, revenue sharing, and protections against predatory contracts. She specifically criticized the lack of exceptions for eligibility and transfer rules for circumstances like pregnancy, religious missions, military service, or sexual assault, which she argued would unfairly punish student-athletes.