HRES-1299-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by J. Hill (R-AR)
What it does
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would make changes across twelve titles covering housing supply, affordability, finance, and oversight. It would create or modify federal programs related to housing counseling, zoning guidance, manufactured housing, small-dollar mortgages, home repair grants, community bank regulation, and veteran housing. It would also prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail central bank digital currency and restrict corporate ownership of single-family homes.
Who benefits
First-time and low-income homebuyers seeking small-dollar mortgages (under $100,000); renters and homeowners in federally assisted housing who would receive temperature monitoring and home repair assistance; low-income homeowners eligible for whole-home repair grants; small and community banks that would face reduced regulatory burdens; rural residents who would benefit from streamlined USDA housing program reviews; manufactured and modular housing producers and buyers; veterans experiencing homelessness or housing instability; residents of Opportunity Zones targeted for new housing construction; local governments that would gain access to a public database of available land; nonprofit housing counseling organizations that meet performance standards; and municipalities seeking federal guidance on zoning modernization.
Who is hurt
Large institutional investors and corporations that purchase single-family homes at scale (restricted under Title X); housing counseling organizations that may lose federal funding under new performance review and decertification provisions; environmental review advocates who would see NEPA-style reviews waived for rural infill construction; central bank digital currency proponents and fintech firms whose business models depend on a digital dollar; existing mortgage lenders who may face new competition from subsidized small-dollar loan originators; landlords with more than 10 properties or 25 units who would be ineligible for whole-home repair loans; and taxpayers who would bear the cost of new grant programs, pilot programs, and administrative overhead across multiple titles.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States faces a structural housing shortage estimated at 3–7 million units, and that this bill addresses supply-side barriers — including restrictive zoning, inadequate financing for low-cost homes, and underinvestment in existing housing stock — that have driven homeownership out of reach for millions of working families. They contend that the bill's combination of federal zoning guidance, small-dollar mortgage pilots, manufactured housing modernization, and community bank support creates a comprehensive, market-oriented framework that expands access without imposing federal mandates on states or localities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's breadth spreads federal resources too thinly across dozens of pilot programs and studies without guaranteed funding, since Section 1202 explicitly authorizes no additional appropriations. They contend that key provisions — such as waiving environmental review for rural infill sites and restricting corporate home purchases — may produce unintended consequences, including reduced environmental protections in flood-prone areas and legal challenges under the Takings Clause, while the non-binding nature of the zoning guidelines means the bill's most ambitious supply-side goals may go largely unimplemented.
Constitutional context
The bill's federal zoning guidelines and housing mandates rest on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), the same foundation as the Fair Housing Act upheld in Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities (2015). Title X's restrictions on corporate home purchases could face Takings Clause scrutiny under the 5th Amendment, particularly given the Supreme Court's recent expansion of takings doctrine in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024). The Tenth Amendment is also relevant: the bill's zoning guidance is explicitly non-coercive (Sec. 107(e)), likely in recognition of federalism limits on federal commandeering of state land-use authority.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (HUD, USDA, VA) gains significant new rulemaking, grant-making, and oversight authority across all twelve titles, while Congress retains checks through mandatory annual testimony requirements (Sec. 701), FHA reporting requirements (Sec. 702), GAO studies (Sec. 804), and the explicit prohibition on HUD penalizing states or localities that decline to adopt zoning guidelines (Sec. 107(e)).
Historical precedent
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 similarly combined housing finance, supply, and counseling provisions into omnibus legislation, though neither included zoning guidance frameworks or digital currency prohibitions of this scope.