A sweeping bipartisan housing bill aimed at tackling America’s shortage is advancing in Congress but faces sharp disagreement over whether it will truly boost supply or inadvertently constrain it.
The “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act” — combining elements of the House-passed “Housing for the 21st Century Act” sponsored by Rep. French Hill (R-AR) and the Senate version — has passed both chambers in different forms and now moves to a conference committee to reconcile key differences, including controversial limits on large institutional investors in single-family homes.
The legislation is a broad policy package designed to address the nation’s housing shortage, with provisions to expand manufactured and modular housing, streamline certain federal regulations, and incentivize local governments to increase housing supply. It does not appropriate new federal funding but instead focuses on regulatory and structural changes.
A key provision in the Senate version would restrict large institutional investors, defined as entities controlling 350 or more single-family homes, from purchasing additional single-family properties. While the bill allows exceptions for newly built “build-to-rent” communities, those homes would have to be sold to individual buyers within seven years, a requirement that has become a central point of contention.
Supporters argue the bill represents a significant step toward “housing affordability” and fairness in the housing market.
“This Congress, the House has passed bipartisan legislation to empower homeowners and renters, strengthen communities, and foster more affordable choices for all Americans,” Hill said in a press release, but he added that lawmakers must “get the details right” as the process continues.
Labor groups have also backed the measure. The North America’s Building Trades Unions said in a press release that the bill would help ensure construction workers are paid prevailing wages, which it argued protects workers while addressing housing needs.
However, critics across the political spectrum say parts of the Senate bill could have the opposite effect by reducing housing supply.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) stated that he opposed the legislation, arguing it “falls far short” of lowering housing costs. Cruz pointed to the seven-year resale requirement for build-to-rent homes, warning that it could discourage new rental construction.
“Restricting the supply of newly built rental units should not be enshrined in law,” Cruz said, while also raising concerns about expanded federal authority over zoning and regulatory powers granted to federal agencies.
Industry groups, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, echoed those concerns in a March 13 letter to Congress, arguing the provision could “take hundreds of thousands of housing units off the market” and lead to renter displacement if property owners are forced to sell.
At the same time, some Democrats say the Senate version weakened the original House proposal.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, called for a formal conference committee on March 23, warning that the Senate stripped out key housing and banking provisions and added changes that could “undermine housing production.”
Waters said in a statement that the House version included measures to expand homeownership, accelerate manufactured housing construction, and strengthen protections for renters and borrowers, provisions she argues should be restored.
“Failure to act… risks squandering a historic opportunity to address America’s housing affordability crisis,” Waters wrote.
Policy analysts from the Baker Botts law firm say the bill reflects a broader tension in housing policy: balancing efforts to curb large-scale investor activity with the need to encourage new construction.
The Senate bill explicitly avoids overriding local zoning laws, which are often cited as a major barrier to development, potentially limiting the reach of its supply-side incentives.
With both chambers having passed different versions and bipartisan support for action on housing, lawmakers now face the challenge of reconciling competing priorities.
