The United States House of Representatives has passed the Housing for the 21st Century Act by an overwhelming vote of 390–9, advancing a bipartisan initiative designed to address the nation’s worsening housing affordability crisis. The decisive margin reflects rare consensus in a closely divided Congress and signals broad agreement that rising housing costs and limited supply have become urgent economic challenges. Lawmakers supporting the bill described it as a targeted effort to modernize federal housing programs, reduce regulatory barriers that slow development, and encourage greater private-sector participation in expanding supply. Rather than introducing sweeping new spending programs, the legislation focuses primarily on structural reforms aimed at removing inefficiencies within existing systems. With home prices and rents continuing to strain household budgets across urban, suburban, and rural communities alike, members of both parties framed the measure as a practical step toward long-term stability in the housing market. The bill now advances to the Senate, where its future remains uncertain but strengthened by the near-unanimous House support.

The legislation was co-sponsored by French Hill, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Maxine Waters, the committee’s ranking member. Their partnership underscores the unusual bipartisan alignment behind the measure. While Hill and Waters often diverge sharply on broader financial regulatory policy, both have consistently emphasized the need to increase housing availability and streamline outdated federal frameworks. The bill cleared the House Financial Services Committee in December before moving to the full chamber, where it received near-unanimous backing. Lawmakers characterized the proposal as a direct response to persistent housing shortages that have driven up prices and limited options for first-time buyers and middle-income families. By focusing on regulatory modernization and program efficiency rather than expanding federal subsidies, supporters argue the measure addresses structural constraints that have compounded affordability challenges over the past decade.

According to a committee summary, the Housing for the 21st Century Act directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of existing federal housing programs to identify gaps, redundancies, and inefficiencies. It also updates the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a long-standing initiative intended to support affordable housing development at the state and local level. In addition, the legislation seeks to reduce regulatory obstacles that lawmakers contend have slowed construction timelines and increased compliance costs for developers. Provisions in the bill provide financial institutions with greater flexibility to deploy capital toward housing projects, particularly in underserved areas where financing constraints have limited development. Supporters maintain that these changes will allow local banks and community lenders to play a more active role in expanding housing supply without being hindered by outdated or duplicative federal requirements. The underlying philosophy emphasizes empowering local communities and market participants while maintaining oversight and accountability.

Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, framed the legislation as part of a broader affordability agenda. He argued that rising housing costs have placed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans and cited regulatory burdens as a contributing factor to limited supply. Johnson described the bill as a critical step toward reducing unnecessary red tape, modernizing HUD programs, and enabling financial institutions to increase housing production. In a recent opinion piece, Hill and Mike Flood echoed that reasoning, emphasizing a basic economic principle: when supply fails to keep pace with demand, prices rise. They argued that expanding housing inventory through regulatory reform and improved capital access would help stabilize costs over time. Rather than layering additional mandates onto developers and lenders, the sponsors contend the legislation clears obstacles that have slowed construction and increased risk, particularly for smaller builders operating in tight-margin environments.

Supporters of the bill point to a combination of factors contributing to the housing shortage, including complex zoning regulations, lengthy permitting processes, rising material costs, and compliance burdens that disproportionately affect small and mid-sized developers. By targeting federal-level inefficiencies, they argue the measure can complement state and local reforms already underway in some jurisdictions. The overwhelming 390–9 vote margin signals broad recognition that housing affordability has become a national concern transcending party lines. Nearly all members of both major parties supported the legislation, reflecting widespread acknowledgment that stagnant supply has exacerbated price pressures. The bill’s bipartisan backing stands out in an era marked by sharp partisan divisions, particularly on economic policy. While some lawmakers favor more aggressive federal intervention through subsidies or direct spending, the Housing for the 21st Century Act represents a supply-focused approach aimed at encouraging development through structural reform.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where housing reform has attracted bipartisan interest but faces procedural and political uncertainties. Tim Scott, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has previously collaborated on housing legislation with Elizabeth Warren, suggesting potential cross-party engagement on supply-related reforms. Whether the Senate will take up the House-passed version intact or pursue amendments remains to be determined. However, the strong House vote may increase pressure for action as affordability concerns continue to feature prominently in national economic debates. If enacted, the Housing for the 21st Century Act would mark one of the most significant bipartisan housing reform efforts in recent years. By focusing on regulatory modernization, program evaluation, and capital flexibility rather than large-scale new spending, lawmakers backing the measure argue it represents a pragmatic attempt to address the structural roots of America’s housing shortage while fostering long-term market stability.