Landmark bipartisan housing legislation has stalled in the House of Representatives after passing by a wide margin in the Senate. Here is a look at some of the holdups.
The Senate voted 89-10 last month to pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which would lessen some government regulations on housing and incentivize state and local governments to ease land-use regulations. The vote was on a bill that combined House and Senate priorities, but that was crafted on the Senate side. And now the bill faces a tricky path to passage in the House.
HOUSING RESEARCHERS PUSH BACK ON BUILD-TO-RENT PROVISION IN BIPARTISAN HOUSING BILL
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a combination of the Senate’s ROAD to Housing Act and the House’s Housing for the 21st Century Act. Some key differences remain, though.
And it’s not clear how the two chambers would fix the legislation. For instance, will there be informal negotiations to come to an agreement between the two chambers? Some, like House Finance Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR), who spearheaded the House’s version, have even raised the idea of a conference to work on changes to the legislation.
CBDC language
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes language, aimed at appeasing conservatives, that applies a temporary ban on central bank digital currencies.
A CBDC is a form of digital currency issued by a central bank. In the United States, that would be the Federal Reserve. Consumers would be able to use digital money issued directly by the Fed in addition to cash. Proponents of a CBDC argue that a centralized dollar would help prevent bank bailouts and increase efficiency.
But opponents, many of whom are Republicans, contend that it could give the Fed too much power or could raise Fourth Amendment concerns, depending on how much control the government would have over individual accounts.
The latest iteration of the bipartisan housing legislation would ban the Fed from issuing a central bank digital currency through 2030.
But the language might not go far enough in the House. Some conservative members are hoping that, rather than having a sunset, the CBDC ban would be permanent, a long-standing goal for the House Freedom Caucus.
There are also concerns that the legislation likely wouldn’t make it through the House Committee on Rules without changes to the CBDC provision.
Still, even the inclusion of a temporary CBDC ban likely upset some Democrats. During a recent interview with a few reporters on Capitol Hill, Senate banking committee Chairman Tim Scott acknowledged that measure’s inclusion.
“And I will say that there’s lots of friends on the other side of the aisle that do not find that digestible,” the chairman said.
Build-to-rent provision
President Donald Trump used his 2026 State of the Union address to push for a ban on institutional investors like Blackstone from purchasing single-family homes, a provision that was in neither the original House nor Senate version of the housing legislation.
But such a ban was added into the latest iteration. Even though it cuts against free-market orthodoxy, Republicans in the House might vote for it. But it also contains language that would require investors in build-to-rent homes to sell those houses within seven years. Housing experts argue it would decrease the housing stock.
Industry groups have come out hard against the proposal.
The National Association of Home Builders, long a supporter of the bipartisan legislation, threatened to withdraw support for the bill over its language. The group is now urging a conference between the House and the Senate over the legislation.
Also, in a recent open letter, a group of prominent housing experts and economists told lawmakers that it would make investing in housing uneconomical and amount to a soft ban. They also said it would directly lead to fewer homes being built.
Still, in a recent interview with the Washington Examiner, Senate banking committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) defended the seven-year provision, noting that it comes with major caveats. He said that, for instance, if the large institutional investor is unable to sell the property within the first 60 days it is on the market, the seven-year provision no longer applies.
He also said it doesn’t apply to real estate investment trusts and “a number of other programs that are designed for home ownership as an outcome.”
“Additionally, it gives the Treasury more discretion that if any of these provisions seems to slow down the actual sale of houses, or to achieve the goal of more homeownership, the Treasury has within the discretion to eliminate and or use their discretion to [reduce the effect of] that provision,” Scott said.
Community banking
Also notably missing from the revamped version of the bipartisan housing legislation is a section included in the House bill about strengthening community banking’s role in housing. Hill, the one tasked with helping pass the Housing for the 21st Century Act, was a major proponent of the community banking section.
Some House members are upset that the Senate gutted community banking language in the bill. The House legislation included provisions that would direct federal financial regulators to help support the creation of new community banks and credit unions through means like streamlining the application process.
When asked about community banking, Scott said that he thinks getting community banks back into the mortgage business is “a very good thing.” He said there are plans for a financial institutions package down the line that would address some of those matters, whereas the housing package is “focusing on how we spur more access on the local level.”
What’s next?
Congress has faced other pressing matters in recent weeks. Funding the Department of Homeland Security and voter ID legislation have taken up more time recently than the housing legislation.
The Senate, which passed the legislation overwhelmingly, hopes the House will vote on the bill as is.
“Affordability is a huge priority for Republicans, and addressing the rising costs of housing is a key piece of the affordability agenda,” a Senate GOP aide told the Washington Examiner. “The Senate-passed bill remains the best solution to address the shared priorities between the president and congressional Republicans.”
MORTGAGE RATES RISE IN DEFIANCE OF TRUMP’S $200 BILLION PUSH, HURTING GOP ON AFFORDABILITY
But one House aide told the Washington Examiner that without changes, the Senate’s version won’t be passed by the House.
“The House already passed the version of the spending bill that is acceptable to over 300 House members,” the aide said. “So if the Senate can’t accept that, and feels the need to send something back that does not include what was in the House package, the House members shouldn’t be supporting it.”
