Two icons of the American left — Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters — are feuding over an unlikely subject: Congress’ approach to housing policy.

Warren and Waters, who respectively serve as the top Democrats on the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees, are longtime allies in fights over economic policy. But as Congress crawls toward passing its largest-scale housing policy reforms in decades, the progressive stalwarts are at odds over what to send to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Warren helped author a bipartisan Senate bill that would sharply curb Wall Street’s ability to invest in the housing market. Waters struck a deal with House Republicans on a slightly more industry-friendly approach in an effort to fight the Senate’s push to get the lower chamber to accept its legislation without changes. Both versions include a range of proposals that seek to address housing affordability and boost home ownership and housing supply.

“Ranking member Warren and ranking member Waters are powerful, larger-than-life personalities. Neither has any inclination to defer to the other,” said one Democratic lawmaker on the House Financial Services Committee who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about sensitive dynamics in their party. “Those of us who serve on either committee are in for a wild ride.”

The House overwhelmingly passed its version of the housing bill last Wednesday, despite warnings from Warren and Scott that it may not have the votes to clear the Senate. The senators said in a joint statement after the vote that there is “still work to be done.”

Clashes over legislative strategy between the House and Senate are a perennial feature of Capitol Hill, and they have complicated efforts on a host of issues over the past two years — far beyond housing. But Warren and Waters’ failure to get on the same page is especially remarkable given that they are both seen as progressive standard-bearers in their party.

The spat over the housing bill illustrates the dysfunction that has marked relations between the House Financial Services and Senate Banking panels this Congress. Beyond the Waters-Warren split, Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) have also been at odds over how to approach housing policy, with Scott and Warren repeatedly — but so far unsuccessfully — partnering to pressure Hill and Waters to accept their preferred approach.

The lawmakers say it isn’t personal.

Warren told reporters last week that she has “always been a fan of Maxine Waters,” adding that her respect for the California Democrat “knows no bounds.” Waters said in an interview that she and Warren “are friends, and we are going to remain friends.” Asked about Scott, Hill said in an interview that his “relationship with Sen. Scott is excellent,” rattling off an array of issues that they have ostensibly worked together on. A Scott spokesperson declined to comment.

Scott and Warren locked arms months ago on the housing bill, calculating that their best shot at making law was to secure a bipartisan agreement that could overwhelmingly clear the Senate — and, crucially, had the backing of the White House. But while House Republicans aren’t in the habit of bucking Trump on much, the president himself did little to get the Senate bill across the finish line.

Scott and Warren included a range of House provisions in their legislation, which passed the Senate in March. Still, House members in both parties bristled at senators pushing them to swallow a bill they had little decisive input on, putting up a level of resistance that the Senate appeared to underestimate.

“Senators are not convinced that there should be a House of Representatives,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who sits on the Financial Services panel. “I think we need a cooperative product.”

The House resistance was enough to overcome a late push by the White House to get representatives to eat the Senate bill — despite the fact that President Donald Trump raised his own private reservations about it. The White House is now backing the House bill after it underwent a number of last-minute changes.

Much of the friction over the bill has centered on a provision aimed at preventing big Wall Street investors from buying up single-family homes — an issue that created a rare alignment between Warren and Trump. The progressive Massachusetts senator, alongside Scott and the White House, fought to preserve the Senate bill’s tough restrictions on private equity by putting continued pressure on the House to just pass what the upper chamber sent.

Waters, meanwhile, heeded warnings from the housing industry that elements of the Senate language could actually run counter to the goal of building more affordable housing. She backed a move to strip out a controversial section in the Senate bill that would have required large institutional investors to sell single-family homes built as long-term rentals after seven years, which critics say would freeze investment in an important source of housing stock. Waters also supported the addition of a slate of bipartisan community bank deregulatory measures, a priority for Hill, that are a potential concern for Warren. The House bill also stripped out several other Senate provisions.

Senators criticized changes the House was preparing to make at points leading up to the floor vote. Waters and Hill had initially sought an even larger scale back of the Senate-approved provision aimed at limiting private equity’s footprint in the housing market. They ultimately moved ahead with a White House-blessed version that retained much of the Senate language while removing the divestiture requirement for built-to-rent homes.

“I honestly just don’t understand where Rep. Waters is coming from,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), a Warren ally on Senate Banking, said in an interview prior to the House releasing its final text.

She said changes the House was preparing made its legislation “much weaker than the Senate bill,” though some of her key concerns — the private equity provision and issues raised by labor groups — were ultimately addressed.

It’s unclear what the Senate will do now with the House bill. Warren and Scott have been circumspect about their next move.

“We wasted a lot of time before the House would focus and tell us what they wanted to do,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said prior to the House vote. “I don’t know if it’s something that’ll work in the Senate, but at least it gets the process moving again.”

Warren, 76, has exerted outsized influence for years over personnel and policymaking among Democrats, especially during Joe Biden’s presidency. But the housing affordability bill represents a chance to notch one of her first-ever significant legislative wins — in the middle of the second Trump presidency, no less. Housing issues have been a focus for Warren dating back to her time as an academic, when she studied bankruptcy law. They have also long been at the top of Scott’s agenda.

Warren said the House bill “got a lot better” leading up to the final vote, adding that she “worked hard on the labor provisions and on the private equity provisions.”

“We just still have some work to do,” she said.

For 87-year-old Waters, who has represented South Los Angeles in the House since 1991, affordable housing policy is also a legacy-defining issue.

“She has been the voice of affordable housing for her entire congressional [career] — before Elizabeth Warren was elected to anything,” said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), a senior House Financial Services member. “This is her life’s passion. And I think that we all should follow her lead.”

Katherine Hapgood contributed to this report.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/WxLveNC
https://ift.tt/8o6CiBL