Lawmakers form new caucus to work on infrastructure projects
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – A new caucus formed in Congress aims to cut red tape and make it easier to build housing, infrastructure and energy projects.
'We have over a billion dollars of natural gas and energy right in our backyards,' Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) said.
The bipartisan, 'Build America Caucus,' says it has one main goal.
'We've got to get back to getting stuff done,' Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.) said.
That 'stuff' lawmakers say is building more housing, infrastructure and energy projects by cutting red tape that makes it take so long.
'Four years later I'm still being told by my community that it's going to take another decade before they can actually fix some of the bridges that are in desperate need of repair,' Harder said.
Rep. Josh Harder is leading the new group. He says they'll work on streamlining regulations that slow down needed projects.
'We have to make sure that we're putting outcomes above process,' Harder said.
The group says its priorities are unleashing American energy through permitting reform, making housing more affordable by incentivizing states to build and speeding up infrastructure projects by simplifying regulations.
Lawmakers say they can do all that and still protect the environment.
'We have a lot of protections now. Let's build stuff,' Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said.
Rep. Scott Peters says there are clean energy projects waiting to be built.
'But the environmental laws are in our own way. And we have to take a hard look in the mirror and change that,' Peters said.
Harder says the caucus plans to talk to policy experts over the next few weeks. Then, start turning those ideas into legislation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranians again face a U.S. travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump, with the decision drawing anger, frustration and some shrugs given the decades of tensions between the countries. Trump imposed a similar ban during his first term before withdrawing America unilaterally from Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, under which Iran drastically limited its program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. When he returned to the White House and began seeking a new deal with Iran, it saw the country's rial currency improve and stocks rise. But worries have grown as its government appears poised to reject an initial American proposal. The travel ban has further darkened that mood and led Iranians to fear Trump will lump the nation's 80 million people with its theocratic government even after he repeatedly praised them while seeking a deal. 'Now I understand that Trump is against all Iranians, and his attitude is not limited to the government,' said Asghar Nejati, a 31-year-old man working in a Tehran pharmacy. Even in the years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, Iranian students traveled to the U.S. to attend universities. Between 2018 and 2024, an average of around 10,000 Iranian students went to the U.S. annually. Estimates suggest some 1 million Iranian-origin people live in the U.S. today. Mehrnoush Alipour, a 37-year-old graphic designer, said the nations could have better relations if they could spoke to each other in softer tones. 'This is another foolish decision. Trump cannot reach his goals by imposing pressures on ordinary Iranians," she said. "The two nations can have better relations through openings, not restrictions.' Bank teller Mahdieh Naderi said Trump was lashing out over his frustrated efforts to reach ceasefires in the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war. 'Trump just expressed his anger about his failed plans,' Naderi said. 'He is complaining about the Chinese and others who are living in the U.S., too Some said interest in the U.S. was already waning before the latest ban. 'Over the past years, two of my grandchildren went to Canada to continue their education there," said Mohammad Ali Niaraki, 75. "Iranians are not limited in immigration and they are not as interested to go to the U.S. as they were decades ago. Iranians prefer Canada, as well as neighboring countries with flourishing economies like the (United Arab) Emirates.' Others pointed out that high-ranking government officials have children living or working in the U.S., despite the tensions, and suggested that it would be fair to remove those as well. Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump's decision. 'Those who have family members in the U.S, it's their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,' he said. 'So his policy is correct. He's doing the right thing.' ___ Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Netanyahu falls short of forming gov't in latest voting projections
According to the survey, current opposition parties would secure 61 seats, excluding Arab parties, or 65 seats, including a party led by Naftali Bennett. Current projections indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would struggle to form a government if elections were held today, according to a Ma'ariv poll published Friday. According to the survey, the current opposition parties would secure 61 seats, excluding the Arab parties, or 65 seats, including a party led byNaftali Bennett. In both scenarios, Netanyahu would fall short of a majority. The survey found that Netanyahu still leads the opposition leaders in terms of suitability for prime minister, with a 17 percent advantage over Yair Lapid and a 10 percent lead over Benny Gantz. However, Naftali Bennett is seen as more suitable for the role than Netanyahu by the Israeli public, with 46 percent support compared to 39 percent for Netanyahu. The poll showed the following results (excluding a party led by Bennett): Likud, headed by Netanyahu, would receive 22 seats; Yisrael Beytenu, led by Avigdor Liberman, would win 19; the National Unity Party, headed by Benny Gantz, would get 15; the Democrats, headed by Yair Golan, would also receive 15; Yesh Atid, headed by Lapid, would get 12; Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, would secure 10; Otzma Yehudit, headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, would win nine; United Torah Judaism, led by Yitzhak Goldknopf and Moshe Gafni, would win eight; Ra'am, led by Mansour Abbas, would secure five; and Hadash-Ta'al, led by Ayman Odeh and Ahmad Tibi, would get five. The Religious Zionist Party and Balad would not cross the electoral threshold. In the scenario where a party led by Bennett would run, it would receive 27 seats, overtaking Likud, which would then receive 20 seats. The Democrats would win 11; Yisrael Beytenu would secure 10; Shas and Yesh Atid would both win nine; the National Unity Party would secure eight; Otzma Yehudit and United Torah Judaism would each get eight; Ra'am would win six; and Hadash-Ta'al would secure four. The survey also examined public opinion on an Israeli strike against Iran. A majority of Israelis (55 percent) expressed support for an attack. Of these, 34 percent favor an immediate strike even without US approval, while another 21 percent believe it should take place only with American approval. About 24 percent said Israel should wait for the outcome of negotiations between Iran and the United States, seven percent believe it is too late for an attack, and 14 percent are undecided. Among coalition voters, 56 percent support a strike even without US approval, compared with 34 percent among opposition voters, who prefer waiting for American approval. The poll, conducted for Ma'ariv by the Lazar Research Institute, led by Dr. Menachem Lazar, in collaboration with Panel4All, has a maximum sampling error of 4.4 percent.
