[Senate Hearing 118-220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-220
BUILDING CONSENSUS TO ADDRESS HOUSING CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING PROPOSALS TO MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE, SAFER, AND EASIER
TO FIND
__________
APRIL 26, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-658 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chair
JACK REED, Rhode Island TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
TINA SMITH, Minnesota J.D. VANCE, Ohio
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama
RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK, Georgia KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania STEVE DAINES, Montana
Laura Swanson, Staff Director
Lila Nieves-Lee, Republican Staff Director
Elisha Tuku, Chief Counsel
Amber Beck, Republican Chief Counsel
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Pat Lally, Assistant Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023
Page
Opening statement of Chair Brown................................. 1
Prepared statement....................................... 40
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Scott................................................ 3
Prepared statement....................................... 41
WITNESSES
Lou Tisler, Executive Director, National NeighborWorks
Association.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to written questions of:
Chair Brown.............................................. 179
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 188
Senator Warnock.......................................... 194
Senator Cramer........................................... 205
Vanessa Brown Calder, Director of Opportunity and Family Policy
Studies, Cato Institute........................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 158
Diane Yentel, President and CEO, National Low Income Housing
Coalition...................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 162
Responses to written questions of:
Chair Brown.............................................. 209
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 213
Senator Warnock.......................................... 217
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Letter submitted by the National Association of Realtors......... 220
Letter submitted by the Action Campaign.......................... 223
Letter submitted by J. Ronald Terwilliger Center for Housing
Policy......................................................... 228
Statement submitted by Click n' Close, Inc....................... 230
Letter submitted by COSCDA....................................... 244
Statement submitted by HouseCanary............................... 252
Statement submitted by NMHC and NAA.............................. 258
Letter submitted by Zillow....................................... 268
(iii)
BUILDING CONSENSUS TO ADDRESS HOUSING CHALLENGES
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10 a.m., in room 538, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Chair of the Committee,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIR SHERROD BROWN
Chair Brown. I call the hearing of Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs Committee to order.
In February we heard from witnesses about the housing
challenges that families and their communities face. We heard
that more than two-thirds of families are not able to afford to
buy a typical new home. We heard about how local exclusionary
zoning policies, from minimum lot sizes to parking
requirements, combine with process delays to shut out new
construction or to make it more expensive. We heard about the
rising costs facing renters, especially working class renters,
and how few homes are available for them, including in rural
areas. And we heard about the need to repair the homes we
already have, by making them safer, more efficient, and more
accessible for families, including seniors. We have been
hearing about these challenges for years, and not just from
renters and homeowners but from community leaders and
businesses.
Because a shortage of affordable housing is not just a
housing problem. It is an education problem. It is a health
care problem. It is an economic growth problem.
In Ohio, I have heard from mayors and sheriffs and police
officers, from Lancaster to Grove City to Lima that first
responders who work in these communities want to live there,
but cannot. That makes it hard to recruit and retain the kind
of young, diverse talent they need to keep their communities
working and keep them safe.
In Cleveland, a coalition ranging from hospitals to schools
to community groups have banded together on an innovative
education and investment campaign to prevent lead poisoning, as
Mr. Tester knows.
And as new jobs come to Central Ohio, everyone from mayors
to the CEOs of more than 80 of the largest institutions in the
region are talking about the need to invest in affordable
housing to attract and support workers. These challenges are
playing out in every State. Our constituents are calling on us
to address them.
At today's hearing, we will start examining proposals to
make housing more affordable, safer, and easier to find. And we
will work toward finding common ground on commonsense solutions
this Committee can advance. Many might like to cite a few of
those.
Many Members, on both sides have put forward ideas. Ranking
Member Scott's ROAD to Housing proposal, which I am sure he
will touch on today. It also includes Senator Coons and Senator
Cramer's--thank you for that--Choice in Affordable Housing Act,
which aims to get more landlords involved in the voucher
program. We recognize the challenges there.
Senators Van Hollen and Young have authored the Family
Stability and Opportunity Vouchers Act, to help support low-
income families, including families who want to move to areas
with better schools and more job opportunities.
Senator Cortez Masto has put forward a reauthorization of
the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, to help States and
communities address our Nation's changing housing needs.
There are also a number of Members off of this Committee
who have developed proposals too. That includes Senator Casey,
who has been working on a proposal to address blighted
properties, drive community revitalization, and support
affordable housing development by supporting and strengthening
local land banks.
I have also been working with Senator Casey and Senator
Collins on the Grandfamily Housing Act, which would support the
housing needs of grandparents who become the primary caregivers
for their grandchildren.
It also includes Senator Bennet, who led our bipartisan
Eviction Crisis Act, to help prevent unnecessary evictions and
the harm that is caused when children and parents are suddenly
uprooted, often by private equity firms, and have no place to
call home.
And Senators Schatz and Collins, who authored the Reforming
Disaster Recovery Act to help our country better recover from
the increasing number of natural disasters facing communities
across the country.
In addition to today's hearing, next week Senator Smith,
from this Committee, from Minnesota, and Senator Lummis, also
from this Committee, from Wyoming, will hold a hearing on the
unique housing challenges facing rural communities, which is
another important piece of this discussion.
Work to address our housing shortage is not just limited to
this Committee. The Finance Committee, where Senator Scott and
I both sit, is also discussing important proposals, like the
Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act and the Neighborhood
Homes Investment Act that along with proposals out of this
Committee, could help support more affordable housing
development for homeowners and renters.
We do not all agree on every idea, but today's hearing is
another important step as we continue our work to build
consensus on legislation that can address the many challenges
facing the people and communities that we represent.
I want to thank Ranking Member Scott and the Members today.
We came to agreement on a fentanyl bill that we have talked to
Senator Rounds, Senator was a cosponsor already, Senator
Tester, and a number of our colleagues on your side of the
aisle. What we are able to do in this housing is really
important in a bipartisan way.
Senator Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM SCOTT
Senator Scott. Thank you very much, and thank you for
joining the fentanyl bill that we all should focus on as it
relates to stopping fentanyl from killing 70,000 more
Americans, as we see our southern border unsafe, unsecure, and
wide open. And the impact that it is having on Americans is
undeniable and measured in the number of deaths that we are
seeing across the border.
On April 11th, we celebrated the 55th anniversary of the
Fair Housing Act of 1968, a triumph for civil rights by
outlawing discrimination in housing. While it is important to
celebrate these victories, we cannot turn a blind eye to
progress. It is our responsibility to consider whether progress
has indeed been made, or if we need to switch gears and
critically rethink how we deliver on these goals.
Unfortunately, our housing policies are not resulting in
the true benefits and advancements that our hardest hit
families deserve. Despite spending trillions of dollars on
subsidies for affordable housing, the home ownership rates for
minorities have not changed since a couple years after the
Housing Act was passed. An unacceptable reality. And on top of
that, we have all seen the rise in homelessness over the last
several years, despite spending more money on homelessness
programs than ever before. Something is clearly not working.
Additionally, HUD research tells us that the average length
of stay for families across all HUD-assisted housing programs
has nearly doubled--doubled--since 1995 through 2015. Federal
programs are meant to transition people out of poverty, not
keep them in poverty. How long before we realize that throwing
more money on solutions that are not working is a problem,
particularly for those residents living in Government-assisted
housing? We need a more thoughtful, opportunity-building
solution than we are working on so far.
Should we continue to double down on last century's
policies that seemingly failed to solve last century's
problems? The answer is obviously no.
In fact, it is time for a new approach, an approach that
gives Americans who have lost hope a roadmap to opportunity and
prosperity, one that combines proven, bipartisan policies with
new solutions. I am introducing a discussion draft of my
legislation, the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream, or
ROAD to Housing Act.
Before we dive into some of the policies we are considering
in this legislation, I have a few requests to make.
For the witnesses with us today sharing your expertise, and
all other stakeholders working to make the American dream a
reality for those who today seem to think that it is elusive or
unachievable, I would love your expertise as we craft
legislation and keep it as a part of the road to the American
dream. I ask for your input.
To the other Senators here today, I ask that all of us
would put aside whether we are on the left or the right, and
think about helping more Americans achieve the American dream.
To the American public who might be watching us today, all
35 of those watching C-SPAN, hoping to find a path toward
prosperity, I have said this before, that success is created
not here in Washington in hearing rooms, but actually they are
typically created in apartments and garages, at kitchen tables,
and in classrooms across this great Nation.
Let us craft laws and policies that help pave the pathway
to home ownership.
The ROAD to Housing Act introduces new and needed reforms
across all sectors of our housing market. These proposals are
meant to be a departure from the stale, partisan ideas that
have defined our debates over Federal housing policy in recent
years.
For families looking to buy a home or struggling to stay in
one, my legislation will increase access to high-quality
housing counseling and financial literacy programs. For
families in rural America, it will provide access to housing
that suits your needs. For families in search of entry-level
and affordable housing, it will encourage the construction and
financing of lower-cost homes. For families in public housing,
it will empower program administrators to provide better-
tailored support and encourage access to private capital,
keeping your homes safe and healthy.
For those who do not have a place to call home, it will
ensure that Federal homelessness programs and funding pays for
results, rewarding communities or programs who have made
progress with helping their homelessness. And for taxpayers, it
will ensure that the Federal agencies spending your hard-earned
dollars are doing so effectively and with accountability.
Though I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses as
they consider the legislation, we must also acknowledge that
the housing problems we face are broader than this Committee's
jurisdiction. A lack of supply, the costs of complying with
Government regulations, and a shortage of workers all
contribute to the shortage of affordable housing. So as this
legislation develops, we will look forward to having a
conversation about innovative solutions for the broader
challenges that we face.
I hope that we can call all of us to the table to address
the housing challenges our country faces, and I look forward to
working with each and every one of you.
One final note. Homes and communities are not built without
hard work. So after making requests from everyone else in this
room, I want to make a promise myself, to consistently stay at
the table, making sure that housing affordability is not a
hearing, but a theme at permeates throughout the entire year.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Scott. I will introduce
today's witnesses.
Lou Tisler, Executive Director of the National
NeighborWorks Association. He served as Director of the Housing
Counseling Network for the National Community Reinvestment
Corporation, led a Cleveland NeighborWorks affiliate where he
worked at the height of the financial crisis, helping Ohio
families save their homes. He is a resident of Rocky River,
Ohio. Welcome, Lou, Mr. Tisler.
Vanessa Brown Calder is the Director of Opportunity and
Family Policy Studies at Cato. Prior to joining Cato, she was
the Staff Director of the Joint Economic Committee. Ms. Brown
Calder, welcome.
Diane Yentel is the President and CEO of the National Low
Income Housing Coalition. She previously was Vice President of
Public Policy and Government Affairs at Enterprise Community
Partners, and Director of the public Housing Management and
Occupancy Division at HUD. Welcome back, Ms. Yentel.
Mr. Tisler, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF LOU TISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
NEIGHBORWORKS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Tisler. Thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member
Scott, and the Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
discuss building consensus to address our Nation's housing
challenges.
National NeighborWorks Association, or NNA, is a trade
association for NeighborWorks America chartered organizations.
With almost 250 organizations across the country, in every
State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and tribal lands,
our members provided over $10 billion of affordable housing as
well as community and economic development in fiscal year 2022.
This impact reflects the leveraging of $65 for every $1 of
federally appropriated funds to NeighborWorks America. The
flexibility of these funds allows for locally driven solutions
for place-based challenges. Larger national housing challenges
are upon us now. We ask that this body find consensus to
address these challenges soon.
There is not one silver bullet to address all the housing
challenges faced across our Nation. These challenges span all
income levels, impacting everyone, having an increasing
negative impact to those at or below the area median income.
These challenges span all areas, not just urban areas, but also
middle neighborhoods, inner-ring suburbs, rural areas, and
tribal lands. These challenges span all racial demographics,
having much more negative impact on our communities of color,
and they span m any occupations--first responders, essential
workers, teachers, nurses, and a whole host of others.
What are the possibilities of Federal solutions? My written
testimony speaks to a wide spectrum of housing stock needs,
from increasing housing supply to repairing existing housing
stock, to addressing blighted housing whose removal would be of
community benefit.
This body, as well as the entire Congress, should build
consensus solutions that lead to successfully addressing our
Nation's housing challenges. These solutions could address
access to capital through Community Development Finance
legislation that would effectively increase and improve housing
stock, the Community Development Finance Caucus, a prime
example of moving in a bipartisan way to find access to capital
solutions.
Other challenges needing to be addressed are generating
solutions for manufacturing housing challenges that affect
rural, suburban, and even urban areas; jump-starting
neighborhood revitalization through a national land banking
program, as well as increasing funding to NeighborWorks
America; supporting and replicating effective repair
programming such as the Whole Homes Repair Program in
Pennsylvania; revisiting rules and regulations related to
current Federal funding, cutting red tape to make these
programs more effective and efficient, while ensuring safe and
healthy housing.
Opportunity Zones should increase the incorporation of
private investment to spur greater production and
rehabilitation of affordable housing, relying on this
increasing private investment to lead the value proposition of
Opportunity Zones. Supporting and enhancing shared equity
programs like Community Land Trusts and Resident-Owned
Communities. Working closely with the Senate Committee on
Agriculture to create capacity-building and housing synergies
through the reauthorization of the farm bill. And leveraging
the impact and success of HUD-certified housing counseling to
create new homeowners, successful renters, and financially
resilient residents.
We know that the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, or
Neighborhood Homes, is not in the jurisdiction of this
Committee, though it is a shining example of creating a pathway
to successful consensus-based, bipartisan, bicameral solutions
to a national housing strategy.
We know from past experience broad consensus works, whether
here on Capitol Hill or between our partners at the Mortgage
Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, and
the National Home Builders Association. Between organizations
like NNA, NeighborWorks America, the National Housing
Conference, the Housing Assistance Council, Grounded Solutions
Network, the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition, and a
host of others, including my colleagues here today.
We know broad-based consensus works. To be successful in
addressing our Nation's housing challenges, the urgency of
consensus is now. Working together in addressing our Nation's
housing challenges will show the American people that there are
achievable solutions for our neighborhoods, for our
communities, and for our country.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
building consensus to address our Nation's housing challenges.
I look forward to answering your questions today.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Mr. Tisler.
Ms. Brown Calder, welcome.
STATEMENT OF VANESSA BROWN CALDER, DIRECTOR OF OPPORTUNITY AND
FAMILY POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE
Ms. Brown Calder. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Brown,
Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for convening this hearing. My name is Vanessa Brown Calder,
and I am the Director of Opportunity and Family Policy Studies
at Cato Institute. In my role at Cato, I focus on policies that
support family and increase opportunity, with a special focus
on housing.
Housing continues to function as a gateway to economic,
educational, and social opportunities for millions of
Americans. When housing is abundant, it is more affordable.
Affordable housing provides a pathway to better jobs and a
better education. It allows individuals to be part of the
communities that they desire.
On the other hand, when housing supply is limited, housing
prices rise and opportunity declines. Today America has an
acute housing imbalance and continuing affordability
challenges. Although a variety of factors are relevant, Federal
and local policy is unfortunately substantially to blame. State
and local regulatory constraints on housing supply have limited
supply in many places for many years. Zoning and land use
regulation continues to limit housing supply by increasing
development costs, creating uncertainty, and producing delays.
These regulations limit nearly every aspect of development.
They subject housing development to lengthy review processes
with many veto points. Together, these regulations effectively
freeze preexisting development in place, which makes it
difficult to build new homes or accommodate new residents.
A large volume of academic research ties land use
regulations to high housing prices. A well-known paper finds
that zoning regulations pushed up the cost of apartments by
around 50 percent in Manhattan, San Francisco, and San Jose. A
recent paper reviewing 24 metropolitan areas finds a massive
``zoning tax'' of up to $500,000 per quarter acre, in cities
with restrictive land use regimes.
The importance of housing supply becomes quickly evident
when contrasting the outcomes of homeless policy initiatives
across Utah, California, and Houston, Texas. All three
locations have adopted Housing First policies which emphasize
the need for permanent housing before tackling other issues,
such as mental health problems or substance use disorder.
Despite their commitment to providing the homeless with
housing, only Houston, a place lacking a traditional zoning
code, with a pro-development culture and responsive housing
supply, has been able to significantly reduce homelessness
under this policy.
As one other example of policy limiting housing supply,
Federal lands policy severely limits the supply of available
land for housing in Western States that have experienced
substantial recent in-migration. In Western States like Nevada,
Utah, and Idaho, the Federal Government owns most of the land.
A recent study finds that a reform that would allow local
governments to purchase just 0.1 percent of Federal land
holdings could lead to the construction of approximately 2.7
million new homes.
Although housing programs are often the focus of housing
affordability conversations, underlying housing affordability
problems will not be fixed through subsidies for rent and home
ownership. 5.2 million households use Federal rental
assistance, but there are over 41 million cost-burdened or
severely cost-burdened households and 62 million low-income
renters in the United States.
Even generously expanding existing programs or creating new
ones would still only reach a fraction of renters and
homeowners experiencing affordability issues.
Although housing subsidies will not solve widespread
housing affordability issues, there are nonetheless
opportunities to improve existing housing programs. These
improvements should be made with an eye toward increasing
effectiveness, innovation, and human flourishing. Senator
Scott's proposal to reward effective homeless initiatives,
allow greater experimentation, reduce regulation, and allow the
continuing conversion of public housing to voucher assistance
are all commonsense reforms that should be seriously considered
by both sides.
Furthermore, existing housing programs that are ineffective
or poorly targeted to the poor, should be repurposed or
eliminated. For instance, research indicates that the benefits
of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit flow primarily to
developers, rather than low-income tenants. In general,
directing subsidies to the lowest-income people constitutes the
most compassionate, effective, and economically efficient
approach.
The goal of housing policy should not be to increase
spending and expand programs. It should be to radically improve
existing housing policy, housing supply, and affordability.
Then Americans of all stripes will have the pride of standing
on their own two feet and the opportunity to achieve their
dreams.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Ms. Brown Calder.
Ms. Yentel, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DIANE YENTEL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL LOW
INCOME HOUSING COALITION
Ms. Yentel. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
Housing costs are out of reach for too many of the lowest-
income renters in America. Rents are far higher than what the
lowest-income and most marginalized people, including seniors,
people with disabilities, and working families can pay. Despite
the clear and urgent need, Congress provides funding for
housing assistance for only one in four eligible households,
and while removing restrictions on local zoning are important,
subsidies are necessary to make homes affordable for extremely
low-income households, as my written testimony describes at
length.
In the absence of affordable housing, 10 million of the
lowest-income renters? households pay at least half of their
limited income on rent, leaving them without the resources they
need to put food on the table, purchase needed medications, or
otherwise make ends meet. Paying so much on rent leaves the
lowest-income families always one financial emergency or
unexpected expense away from facing eviction, and in worse
cases, homelessness.
For millions of these households, the COVID-19 pandemic was
that financial shock. The pandemic and accompanying hardship
put as many as 12 million households at risk of losing their
homes without immediate Government action. Federal, State, and
local governments responded to the warnings of housing
advocates and impacted people with unprecedented resources and
protections to keep renters housed and moved people
experiencing homelessness to safety. Most of these temporary
measures were bipartisan, and they significantly reduced
housing instability and unnecessary suffering during the
pandemic. But as protections expire and emergency resources are
depleted, the lowest-income renters are now struggling more
than ever.
The pandemic's negative impact on employment and income,
followed by severe rent and other inflation, worsened an
affordable housing crisis that was already acute. Between 2019
and 2021, the gap in affordable and available rental homes for
the lowest-income renters grew from 6.8 million to 7.3 million,
leaving these renters with even fewer places to turn.
And as rents increased, so too did homelessness in many
communities. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has
found that a $100-per-month median increase in rent is
associated with a 9 percent increase in homelessness in that
same community, and over the last 2 years, rents increased by
nearly $200 per month.
Congress must increase investments in long-term solutions
to the pervasive and longstanding shortage of affordable,
accessible homes, including by making rental assistance
universally available to all eligible households in need,
preserving and expanding the supply of homes affordable to
people with the lowest incomes, providing resources to prevent
evictions and homelessness, and strengthening and enforcing
renter protections.
So we likely cannot achieve all this during this Congress.
We have more work to do to build political will for
comprehensive solutions. But thankfully, there are bipartisan
bills, with strong bipartisan support among the public, that
can and should be advanced, that could ensure more extremely
low-income families are safely and stably housed, and fewer
face eviction and homelessness.
So we urge this Committee and this Congress to quickly
advance bipartisan housing bills that would have a measurable
impact on the housing crisis, bills such as the Family
Stability and Opportunity Vouchers Act, to provide 250,000 new
Housing Choice Vouchers for families with young children; the
Eviction Crisis Act, to continue the success of the bipartisan
ERA programs; and other bipartisan bills to improve and
streamline existing housing programs, build housing for people
with the lowest incomes, improve oversight of Federal disaster
resources, and increase access to fair and affordable housing.
Rents have skyrocketed. Eviction filings are rising and
surpassing prepandemic levels. Homelessness is increasing. The
country's lowest-income people are struggling to stay housed,
and Congress' inaction costs us all. But quick bipartisan
action by this Congress can, just as it did during the
pandemic, save lives, save money, and provide housing relief
for many. I urge this Committee and this Congress to act
quickly and, at minimum, advance the multitude of bipartisan
housing bills before us.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Ms. Yentel. I will start with you.
In the previous two Congresses I cosponsored the Eviction
Crisis Act with Senator Bennet, Democratic Senators Young and
my former colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman. Too many
seniors and families are one car repair or one sick child, a
sudden job loss away from being evicted and having their
educations, jobs, and lives turned upside down.
How would the bipartisan Eviction Crisis Act help? Walk
through that for us.
Ms. Yentel. So two main ways. One, through creating a
national data base on evictions. The more reliable public data
there is on evictions and evictors, the better Federal, State,
and local policymakers can create and implement solutions to
lessen evictions. The other is through creating a permanent
program to provide cash assistance to low-income households who
otherwise can make ends meet, to absorb an unexpected financial
shock that can otherwise lead to eviction and a spiraling down
into poverty, with all of its associated costs to kids,
communities, and the country.
And so even before the pandemic, in 2019, there was
bipartisan understanding and agreement that an emergency rental
assistance-like program could save money and provide housing
stability for millions of families, and certainly then the
pandemic came and we had our pilot program. Over 500 emergency
rental assistance programs stood up throughout the country. The
program has been very successful. Nearly 11 million payments
have been made, and it has kept millions of families stably
housed. It lowered the eviction filing rate to the lowest on
record.
So the Eviction Crisis Act would build off of these lessons
learned and the success to create a permanently authorized
program to help assist families before they reach the point of
eviction and homelessness, with all of its associated costs.
Chair Brown. Thank you. You speak eloquently of the
necessity for this. Understanding that so many people that are
evicted have jobs, in many cases, too, minimum wage, barely
above minimum wage jobs, and this is the time when Congress,
bipartisanly, can act. Thank you for that.
Mr. Tisler, many older homes need repairs to help save
money, utility bills, to eliminate hazards like lead and mold
to make them accessible for seniors. You have been a real
leader on that issue in our part of Ohio. In Cleveland and
other areas, a lot of homes built before 1978--when I go to
East Palestine that suffered from that train derailment, an
overwhelming number of homes are over 40 or 50 years old.
Addressing lead in these homes can be especially important for
health and safety. We are fortunate in Cleveland to have the
Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition, which has formed an innovative
multisector effort to prevent lead poisoning. We need to do
more.
How would improvements to the HOME Program--Senator Cortez
Masto and this Committee has been a leader in this--how would
improvements in that program and a program funding
comprehensive home repairs help you do this work?
Mr. Tisler. Thank you, Chairman Brown. And definitely, the
Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition is something that should be
replicated across the country, in terms of bringing hospitals
together, corporations, and community people, and being able to
access that kind of funding.
But in terms of the Home Program, what we would really like
to do is to be able to get more people to access that, in terms
of rehabilitation and home ownership. But looking at the HOME
Program, and then also the Whole Homes Program that is
happening in Pennsylvania, being able to layer that on to
address issues such as health and safety, especially lead,
again lead--you know, my previous office was in the Slavic
Village area, where numerous homes, probably 80, 95 percent of
them, were built before 1978. And the lead issue affects
education. It affects health. It affects economic development.
And being able to look at the HOME Program, and being able to
access that, to be able to make sure that it has ease of
regulation to be able to have community development
corporations access that, to have municipalities be able to
make that happen.
In terms of what Senator Cortez Masto is looking at in
terms of the HOME Program is following that reauthorization and
her recommendations to make sure that the HOME Program is able
to be used for home repair as opposed to sitting on the
sideline, not being engaged.
Chair Brown. Thank you, and I appreciate your work in
Slavic Village. I think you know my wife and I live about a
mile from where you are talking about, in Cleveland.
Last question, Ms. Yentel. We have had witnesses across the
political spectrum testify that exclusionary zoning and other
local barriers limit housing supply and raise the cost of
housing. Would you support efforts to help communities reduce
local barriers to housing, or are these efforts sufficient to
make housing affordable for low-income workers and people on
fixed incomes?
Ms. Yentel. I absolutely support efforts. Restrictive local
zoning is a real challenge in many communities. It inhibits the
construction of any kind of apartments, especially affordable
apartments. It drives up costs for everybody, and it reinforces
segregation and racial inequities. So State and local
governments should do much more to remove restrictive local
zoning ordinances, and the Federal Government should do more to
incentivize or require them to do so.
But even when and if these restrictive local zoning
ordinances are lifted, housing will not be affordable to
extremely low-income households because the private market, on
its own, cannot build and operate apartments that are
affordable to them because the rent they can afford to pay does
not cover the costs. This is a basic market failure that
requires Government intervention in the form of subsidies such
as rental assistance, public housing, or other types of ways to
bridge that gap between what the lowest-income people can
afford and what rent costs.
Chair Brown. Thank you. Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thinking about the
concept that sometimes we think more spending somehow leads to
better help for families, and that certainly does not seem to
be true without reforms to the programs that we have. I think
about the fact that New York City, their housing authority, one
of America's largest housing authorities, we see that 1 in 5
public housing residents remain in its programs for more than
40 years, does not sound like the road to the American Dream to
me. Twenty percent of the residents in the New York City
Housing Authority programs are there for four decades. That
sounds like cycles and cycles of folks living in public
housing. It cannot be good for them, and certainly not good for
anyone else.
So I welcome a discussion on how we figure this out, and
moving forward. I think about the fact that when you think that
money is the only solution to some of the challenges that we
face, we think about the fact that during COVID we spent
billions of dollars on housing subsidies, and in addition to
that we typically spend billions of dollars regularly every
year from the Federal Government.
Despite this extra spending or perhaps because of it,
housing costs have certainly skyrocketed since 2020. You think
about the fact that the average sales price of a home has
ballooned from $383,000, beginning in 2020, to $535,000 in
2022. Every rational economist would say a 40 percent increase
in the cost of housing cannot be good for people buying houses.
Instead of trying to cut back on the regulatory burdens or
increase supply of housing, this Administration is dead set on
inflating the demand. Examples of this abound, including FHFA's
recent actions that will penalize borrowers who have done the
right thing, saving for a downpayment or increasing their
credit scores. At the same time, cost continues to increase.
The bureaucracy continues to increase. In just over a decade,
HUD's budget has ballooned from $32 billion in fiscal year
2014, to $73 billion in fiscal year 2022. That is almost a 130
percent increase, with very little to show for it.
This is kind of a simple yes-or-no question that I would
love the panel to answer. Does anyone oppose more
accountability by our housing regulators administering these
costly programs?
Mr. Tisler. Just yes or no?
Senator Scott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tisler. Yes.
Ms. Brown Calder. No.
Ms. Yentel. No. We support more accountability.
Senator Scott. OK. Sounds good.
Mr. Tisler. I am sorry. No. I needed to think about the
question. Sorry about that, Ranking Member Scott.
Senator Scott. I did not have a follow-up for someone that
said yes.
Mr. Tisler. I was thinking about my 34 family members
watching on C-SPAN right now.
Senator Scott. I thought it was only 30, so we thank your 4
for hanging out with us today. Inflation, yes, under the Biden
administration.
OK. So the ROAD to Housing Act proposes incremental changes
to making housing programs more accountable, and grants housing
providers need the flexibility to innovate, increase supply,
and reduce costs to all families. But in particular, low-income
families. How would you improve the legislation, Ms. Calder?
Ms. Brown Calder. Well, thank you for asking. I appreciate
what you have done to move housing policy forward with the ROAD
to Housing Act, both on the innovation side, on the
deregulatory side. As you know, there is so much that can be
done to improve housing policy.
I think one of the things that I would like to see or add
to the conversation, as an objective for longer-term policy
reforms, is to continue to build on what the ROAD to Housing
Act does and continue to move from supply side or production
side housing subsidies toward tenant-based assistance.
So, you know, if we look at programs like, for instance,
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, this program tends to be
representative of what sort of goes wrong when you support
housing through the supply side. As I mentioned in my
testimony, the benefits of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
primarily flow to developers, which is problematic when you
have ``low-income'' in the title of the program and it does not
seem to be actually flowing to the people that it is intended
to support. You know, there are other issues with that program
as well, in terms of crowd-out and other issues along those
lines. So I think that is one of the things.
And I think another thing I would like to see longer term
is just a move toward interim housing assistance. You know,
people sometimes have periods of financial distress but they do
not maybe need permanent housing support. They do not need
long-term shelter. They just have a short-term problem and need
sort of a way to get patched through during that difficult
period.
Senator Scott. One more question for you before I run out
of time here. The Economic Innovation Group, the University of
California Berkeley, as well as the Treasury Department have
shown that the Opportunity Zone investment has been heavily
concentrated in our Nation's poorest communities. One of the
things that we are seeing, however, because of the investments
in OZs in those areas, is a jump in about 20 percent of
residential development, without seeing the apartment rents in
the same areas increase. So we are seeing a dramatic increase
in the number of homes in those areas without gentrification,
which is a blessing from my perspective.
Could you speak to the benefits of harmonizing tax policy
and Federal Government programs so that they work together?
Ms. Brown Calder. I sure can, and I did notice that EIG
study that you mentioned. I think in order to see how important
it is to harmonize Federal tax policy and Federal grant
programs we can look at instances where it does not work, where
it did not work. The State and local tax deduction is one
example of this, from a housing policy perspective. The State
and local tax deduction is capitalized into housing prices in
expensive markets on the coast, and wealthy areas on the coast.
At the same time, those are often the areas that have the
highest levels of regulation. And what I have found in my
research is that the areas with the highest levels of
regulation also receive the highest per capital HUD subsidies.
So basically what you have are these policies that are sort
of working against each other actively. On the one hand,
boosting up the price of housing. On the other hand, you are
trying to undo that with subsidies to reduce the cost of
housing, and you sort of have a cat chasing its tail type of
situation. And so I think that is representative of how
important it is to get both the tax policy and the grant-making
right.
Senator Scott. Thank you, ma'am.
Chair Brown. Thank you.
Senator Reed, of Rhode Island, is recognized.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yentel, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness is
the only Federal agency that is exclusively devoted to
alleviating homelessness. And unlike most Federal agencies, it
terminates if it is not renewed. So Senator Collins and I are
trying to renew it so that it can continue to serve.
Could you talk a little bit about the work of this agency,
how important it is?
Ms. Yentel. Sure. The USICH coordinates the Federal
approach to ending homelessness among 19 Federal agencies. It
works together with Federal, State, and local governments, with
the private sector, to coordinate resources, to coordinate
response to implement best practices, evidence-based best
practices, and really to streamline the response and ensure
that all of the resources are pooled in a way that is used most
effectively, most efficiently, and to advance evidence-based
best practices.
Senator Reed. So your conclusion would be that it really
saves taxpayers' monies and efficient use of taxpayer' dollars.
Ms. Yentel. It does. It is an important agency that should
certainly continue.
Senator Reed. And I am told the cost of, well, this year's
funding is $4 million, which seems to be a reasonable
investment in such efficiency. Do you concur?
Ms. Yentel. Right. The funding is primarily for the staff
that are working closely with all the Federal agencies, with
Federal, State, and local policymakers to do this important
work.
Senator Reed. Mr. Tisler, if I may. FHA's Title I program
allows homeowners to receive FHA-insured loans to fund home
renovations, but there is very little take-up because the loan
limits are so low, it is ignored. Would increasing loan limits
help low- and moderate-income homeowners pay for very needed
repairs and renovations?
Mr. Tisler. Senator Reed, definitely. In terms of looking
at our membership, in terms of getting involved in home repair
and rehabilitation, raising those loan limits are very key in
terms of being able to access that. People are living on the
edge now in terms of what their debt-to-income ratios are, and
things along those lines, and they cannot be able to access
enough funds to address what is happening. I mean, when you
look at supply side and you look at what the cost of a hot
water tank or a furnace, it has gone incrementally,
exponentially higher, and increasing those loans to be able to
do repairs is key to being able to sustain homes into the
future.
Senator Reed. It also might trigger some of the tax
incentives that are built in now for home energy efficiencies,
which would be sort of a double benefit.
The other aspect of this is that accessory dwelling units,
is the term of art, but with the affordable home crisis so
critical, many people are looking for in-law apartments or
other facilities, and this loan program could help with that.
Mr. Tisler. Definitely, in terms of ADUs or accessible
dwelling units. What we would like to see is being able to look
at that flow of income as part of the loan application. We are
going to see an incredible need of housing for seniors coming
up very soon, and ADUs could be one of those tools in the
toolbox to be able to make that happen. So being able to
include those, because a lot of times people say ``structure''
and they mean the house, and you really do not take into
account the ADUs. So being able to look at that and being able
to make loans to homeowners who are putting up ADUs is going to
increase that supply.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Just a final question, Mr. Tisler,
CoreLogic reports that investors, private equity, et cetera,
are acquiring 26 percent of single-family homes sold at the end
of 2022. I find that somewhat disturbing. It seems to be
entirely disruptive of not only the local housing market but
the real estate market, the legal market that operates, et
cetera. And I have also heard concerns that one tactic is to
buy the homes, evict the tenant, and then sell it or rent it to
a higher level, which is not the typical behavior of families
that rent homes, or even small local companies.
Mr. Tisler. Senator, the institutional investors who are
being involved in this are really limiting the supply of homes
and rental units that are available, and really looking to
trying to capitalize. And I understand that capitalism is about
capitalizing. But what they are doing is buying these homes,
perhaps putting in a new ceiling fan and saying ``renovated, we
are going to jack your rent $300.'' It is unseemingly happening
across communities across the country.
It is the new investment vehicle to really improve
shareholder wealth, and it is not helping the American people's
wealth and wealth creation. So anything that this Committee or
this Congress can do to limit that would be welcome across our
250 organizations.
Senator Reed. I concur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Kennedy, of Louisiana, is recognized.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. I appreciate your passion.
Mr. Tisler, do you think the Federal Government should be
making it more expensive to build affordable housing?
Mr. Tisler. Absolutely not, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Well, it is. To build a home, of course, I
think we can agree, this requires money, and the people who
loan that money, of course, expect to be paid back. And they
expect to protect their collateral, which is the affordable
home.
The mortgagee, or the person who loans the money,
oftentimes requires that the homeowner carry insurance. Can we
agree on that?
Mr. Tisler. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. And more and more, the mortgagee, the
person loaning the money, requires the homeowner to carry flood
insurance. Yet while you are here advocating, as we all are,
for affordable housing, our Federal Government, through FEMA,
is working as hard as it can to increase the cost of flood
insurance. FEMA hired a company called Milliman to write a new
algorithm which Milliman says can look at every individual home
in the United States and predict its flood risk over the next
30 years. Amazing. There is just one problem. They will not
share with anyone the algorithm. And as a result of that
algorithm, national flood insurance costs have gone--I will
give you the national figure--from $808 to $1,808.
Now I will give you some concrete examples. In my State we
call counties ``parishes.'' Saint Mary Parish, the median
household income is $40,000, roughly. The new flood insurance
rate in Saint Mary Parish is $5,226 a year, as a result of
FEMA's actions. That does not include homeowners. That does not
include property taxes. That does not include liability
insurance. That is flood.
Now how can you build an affordable home for someone when
they have to pay half of the cost of the home, when you add up
all this insurance they have to carry, in insurance?
Mr. Tisler. Senator, I cannot speak to FEMA because I do
not know how they arrived at that.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, but I guess that was an unfair
question. Why are not the three of you--I am not criticizing
you. I am making this a general suggestion. Why don't you take
a look at what FEMA is doing to the cost of building an
affordable home in America, because you are not going to have
any? There is no free lunch, and you do not get one now. I
mean, they are making it impossible to build affordable housing
in America. And I think the three of you, respectfully, ought
to take a look at that, and the impact on affordable housing in
our country.
Ms. Yentel--did I say your name right?
Ms. Yentel. It is Yen-tell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Yen-tell. I am sorry. You talked about
zoning. Let us take California, for example. I do not mean to
pick on California. I love California. It is a beautiful State.
It is very expensive to own a home there. Can we agree on that?
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. So people, when they buy a home, working
people, poor and middle class--not many people poor can afford
to buy a home--it costs so much that their home becomes their
401[k]. I mean, they have to put the money into equity in their
home. And so they want to protect the value of that home, and
they communicate that to their elected officials. So their
elected officials, despite what they say, make it very
difficult, through their zoning decisions, to build affordable
housing, despite their left-of-center politics. Is that not
what is going on?
Ms. Yentel. That is absolutely true, and California is a
prime example of what happens when very restrictive local
zoning ordinances prevent the construction of any type of
housing, multifamily housing, and especially affordable
housing. And the result is that it drives up costs for
everyone, and it certainly squeezes the lowest-income renters
the most.
But California is not alone. This is a pattern that----
Senator Kennedy. No, but it is the best example, is it not?
Ms. Yentel. It is a prime example, yes.
Senator Kennedy. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Menendez is recognized, from New Jersey.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yentel, the National Low Income Housing Coalition's
2022 Out of Reach Report showed just how hard it is for low-
income renters to afford even modest housing. In my home State
of New Jersey, for which, by the way, we have something the
Mount Laurel decision and a whole host of others, so we do not
have that exclusionary zoning that my colleague was talking
about, a median-income renter is barely able to pay for a one-
bedroom home. The fact is that there just are not enough rental
homes being built, and part of that is because Federal lending
programs through HUD and the Federal Housing Administration
have not kept pace with the market.
So Ms. Yentel, is it true that FHA's multifamily loan
limits have not been adjusted since 2003?
Ms. Yentel. That is true.
Senator Menendez. That is 20 years. Is it also true that
even after adjustments for inflation and higher-cost areas, FHA
multifamily financing is not a viable financing tool in many
parts of the country?
Ms. Yentel. In many parts, yes, that is true.
Senator Menendez. Would you say these limits pose a
challenge to HUD and FHA meeting its mission to provide decent,
safe, and sanitary housing?
Ms. Yentel. I would.
Senator Menendez. That is why I introduced a discussion
draft for today's hearing, Mr. Chairman that would modernize
FHA's ability to finance multifamily housing construction
around the country. It is a simple, commonsense proposal that
would update FHA's lending ability to accurately reflect the
increase in construction costs over the past 20 years. So I
look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee, to empower FHA to meet this one challenge.
Now flooding is one of the most frequent and most expensive
natural disasters impacting homes in the United States, but
just 4 percent of Americans have a flood insurance policy. Ms.
Yentel, is it not true that low-income families
disproportionately face increased flood risk?
Ms. Yentel. Yes. Lower-income communities and often
predominantly communities of color are often located in low-
lying areas that are susceptible to flooding, and the
mitigation dollars and disaster recovery dollars are often not
provided to these communities, sort of continuing a legacy of
disinvestment in these lower-income communities of color, so
they do not have the infrastructure that they need.
Senator Menendez. And what does that mean for uninsured or
underinsured working families and their disaster recovery?
Ms. Yentel. It means that they do not have the
infrastructure they need to prevent or mitigate the effects of
flooding, and then when flooding occurs, often the resources
are diverted to other communities.
I would add, too, that there is a large number of
subsidized housing, about 450,000 units of HUD-subsidized
housing, that are located in flood-prone areas, and some of
them are located in areas that repeatedly flood. So this not
only puts low-income people in harm's way, but it costs the
Government more over time to continuously repair the damages
from floods.
Senator Menendez. FEMA has long struggled to keep premiums
affordable, but it appears that the NFIP's new rating
methodology, called Risk Rating 2.0, has only made flood
insurance more out of reach for working and middle-class
families.
In Patterson, New Jersey, where the median household income
is $50,000 a year, 180 homeowners will see their premiums
increase from an average of $1,500 a year to an average of
$4,000 a year. So the cost of flood insurance is tied directly
to the affordability of home ownership, especially if your
mortgage provider requires coverage, which most do if you are
in a floodplain.
So I worry many families face an impossible choice of being
overburdened with housing costs or foregoing insurance for
their most important financial asset, which is their home,
which is why I will be reintroducing my bipartisan NFIP Re Act,
and I appreciate the Chairman is going to be having a hearing
on flood insurance, which is critically important.
Finally, first responders, teachers, law enforcement, other
public service employees are integral to our communities. The
pandemic especially provided countless examples of these
individuals stepping up when we needed them the most, and in
many cases putting themselves at risk to do so.
Regrettably, many public service employees are facing
rising expenses that are driving them out of their professions.
In recent years, we have seen increasing dire shortages of
police and teachers, to give a few examples.
Mr. Tisler, would a program to make creditworthy public
service employees eligible for a one-time mortgage with no
downpayment and no mortgage insurance premium make housing more
affordable for these individuals?
Mr. Tisler. Senator, being able to make mortgages available
to those who have taken care of us is of utmost importance, and
when looking at being able to access loans in terms of zero
down, low to no interest, it is what we owe those who are
stepping up, to be able to make that happen. We would be able
to see, again, first responders, essential workers, being able
to be closer to where they work, to then, therefore, save money
on transportation and other things, childcare, et cetera, if
they could buy homes in the areas that they are working in, and
we are not seeing that happen now.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. That is what my bipartisan
HELPER Act is, and we look forward to working with the
Committee on that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Senator Tillis, from North Carolina, is recognized.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for
being here.
Ms. Calder, on January 19th, FHFA announced via press
release an intent to rewrite single-family pricing framework
which governs the fees and rate pricing structure that the
Government-sponsored entities, or GSEs, use for the U.S.
housing finance system. As it is designed, it looks like these
policies would decrease overall costs for riskier individuals
with low credit scores, and at the same time forcibly raise
costs and fees for those with better credit scores.
Can you speak to the effects that moving away from a risk-
based pricing model would have on housing lending?
Ms. Brown Calder. Yes. I am happy to try. I think that this
rule, it seems to me that it sets up the wrong incentives for
folks. Obviously, you know, people save money over time for
their downpayment. They work hard. They pay their bills on
time. And those people under this rule would actually be
penalized, which seems like not the right strategy to set up
sure financial footing for our economy, certainly, and the
housing sector.
I think something that concerns me quite a bit is just that
we are starting to be in a deflating market, and as a result of
that softening market I think we really should be very careful
right now about pulling marginal buyers into the housing market
at the right time. You know, we do not want to set those folks
that would be stretching and maybe would not be qualified
otherwise to take out these loans, take out this mortgage. We
do not want to set them up for failure. We do not want to set
these folks up for bankruptcy. We do not know if there will be
a recession in the near term, short term, but it seems like the
wrong time to be making these types of decisions.
And I should say also, more broadly, this may be a less
popular opinion. I think in the U.S. we have a tendency to sort
of romanticize home ownership, when the reality is that home
ownership is not right for everybody and every circumstance,
and renting can actually be a superior option as compared to
home ownership for many. You know, home prices can be volatile,
and home ownership really is an obstacle to mobility, and you
want people to be able to match with jobs and find opportunity
and services and amenities, and be able to move to places in
order to obtain those things.
Senator Tillis. Just following that vein, despite their
press release yesterday, FHFA Director Sandra Thompson said
that ``this rule would increase pricing support for purchase
borrowers limited by income or by wealth.'' Inherently, this
means Director Thompson's plan is designed to place Americans
into homes they would otherwise struggle to afford.
Considering the causes of the subprime loan crisis in 2008,
and the recession that followed, is selling people houses they
would struggle to afford generally a good idea?
Ms. Brown Calder. I would say no, not a good idea.
Senator Tillis. As the U.S. experiences a housing slowdown
do you believe their actions will further dampen the housing
market, based on the proposed policy?
Ms. Brown Calder. I do not.
Senator Tillis. You know, in my time remaining, I came in
on the tail end of Senator Kennedy's comments, and I am going
to submit some questions for the record and end on time. But I
have told this story in Banking before. I served in the
legislature before I came here. I had a meeting with a town in
my district, and the meeting was to talk about increasing the
supply of affordable housing. It was an hour-long meeting. For
the first 45 minutes we were talking about what we could do to
promote affordable housing. And in the last 15 minutes of the
meeting--and I agreed with them. We did a lot of work with that
when I was in the legislature and actually when I was Speaker
for 4 years.
The last 15 minutes of the meeting was a request. We have
what we call ``local bills'' to enable towns to do things that
are otherwise not allowed in the other towns. Their request for
me was to give them the authority to mandate fire suppression
systems in all homes being built, a $100,000 home. And I told
this town council, I said, ``We have spent three-fourths of
this meeting talking about increasing the stock of affordable
housing, and you have just made a proposal that would increase
the cost of that affordable home by 10 to 15 percent for the
housing price that we are talking about.''
One of the things we have to do, if we are going to get
serious about improving the supply of affordable housing is get
serious about rightsizing regulations and permitting. And we
see with WOTUS, the implementation of WOTUS, it will have an
impact on available, affordable housing, and if you do not
believe me, ask the bipartisan county commissioners about what
that is going to do, for the length of the time for the
inventory to come online and the supply.
So I hope as we talk about solutions that we also talk
about the impediments that we are creating and the additive
effect we are having and the reduction in affordable housing
that we have in this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
Senator Tester, of Montana, is recognized.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. I want to thank the folks who are
testifying, of course.
Look, I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I think
there is a role for the Government to build houses, but I do
not necessarily think the solution is Government housing. And
as Senator Tillis just pointed out, I think making sure we are
cutting red tape when red tape is not necessary, bringing folks
together, is really important.
For you three, in your opinion, as succinctly as you can,
can you tell me what is the most effective way to boost housing
supply? Go ahead, Mr. Tisler.
Mr. Tisler. So I think that to boost housing supply you
really need to look and see what are the needs of the
community. It really needs to be bottom-driven in terms of are
we looking at land banks? Are we looking at land trusts? What
does the community need, and what is viable? And when we look
at increasing that supply it is really coming together and
making those regulations less, but still thinking about healthy
and safe homes, but decreasing the cost of being able to do
that.
And so as Senator Kennedy talked about, the flood
insurance, but there are a host of other insurances and things
along those lines. So lowering that cost will increase the
supply. It will incentivize homebuilders to actually build
homes, in terms of smaller scale that are more affordable than
the larger homes because you need to look at the economies of
scale and put that into the cost structure.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Brown Calder. I guess I would just say, very quickly,
comprehensive zoning and land use reform is what I think will
boost supply the most.
Senator Tester. What do you mean by that?
Ms. Brown Calder. Well, it cannot just be one reform. It
cannot just be eliminating, let us say, some regulatory
constraints around siting accessory dwelling units. It needs to
be much broader than that, and the reason----
Senator Tester. I am talking about what level are we do
it--from the Federal level, the State level, or the local
level?
Ms. Brown Calder. I think most effective at the State
level.
Senator Tester. OK. Keep going.
Ms. Yentel. So I would agree that States and localities
need to remove restrictive local zoning ordinances that are
inhibiting construction of apartments, and the Federal
Government can do more to incentivize or even require States
and localities to do that. That will allow the private market
to step in and do what it does, which is build and operate
apartments that are affordable for middle-income renters.
What it will not do is make housing affordable for very low
and extremely low-income households, because the private market
on its own cannot build and operate apartments that are
affordable to extremely low-income households because the rent
that they can pay does not cover the costs to build and operate
housing.
So we should have States and localities do more on
restrictive local zoning for middle-income renters and then
provide subsidies to make homes affordable for extremely low-
income renters in the form of the National Housing Trust Fund,
to build more apartments affordable to them in the form of
preserving and expanding public housing.
But we also need to recognize that we do not need to build
more housing everywhere. There are some communities where there
is enough supply but the people who live in those apartments
cannot afford them. And so for them we need to expand rental
assistance, to be that bridge between what they earn and what
rent costs, and keep them stably housed as well.
Senator Tester. So you have already broached my next
question. Do you see, other than rental assistance, other ways
that Federal housing programs could be improved, from a Federal
standpoint?
Ms. Yentel. That rental assistance could be improved?
Senator Tester. Well, not only rental assistance but
housing programs overall, rental assistance being one.
Ms. Yentel. Sure. Yeah, the Choice in Affordable Housing
Act is a bipartisan bill before this Committee, and it is a
good example of ways that we can improve the Housing Choice
Voucher program to create more choice for tenants to be able to
live in what are often called communities of opportunity, to
streamline inspections and other requirements related to the
program, to make the worth of a voucher more reflective of
local rental costs. So yes, there are a number of ways that we
can improve, and there is bipartisan support to do it.
Senator Tester. OK. Mr. Tisler, very quickly, as you look
at urban American and as you look at rural America, are the
problems different or are the solutions different?
Mr. Tisler. You know, I think the problem is the same in
terms of the affordability of homes and housing in general. I
think that when you look at density, that is where the
solutions are different. In terms of looking at low-income tax
credit properties in rural communities it is very hard, as
Diane said, in terms of being able to cover those costs, where
in an urban market it is a lot easier because of that density.
So there are definitely differences, especially when
looking at manufactured housing and how manufactured housing
can be the issue for many in rural communities. It can be an
issue in suburban and urban communities.
Senator Tester. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Lummis is recognized, from Wyoming.
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
panel, for being here. I know that Senator Scott has taken a
keen interest in this subject, and his ROAD to Housing Act is a
great framework to offer, you know, ides that are going to move
this conversation forward on housing. Certainly supporting
innovation and reducing regulatory burdens are ways we can help
Americans find affordable rental housing or move into home
ownership.
This year has created some particular issues that normally
we do not have to deal with. We have had unprecedented amounts
of snow in Wyoming, so much so that the snow load on the roofs
of our housing weighs so much that whole buildings are
collapsing. Not issues that you encounter everywhere, but I
suspect, Ms. Smith, you know what I am talking about. It is a
unique issue to some of us who are in the intermountain area or
in northern climates, but there are also uniquenesses to those
areas in the South that we do not encounter. Anyway, the
regional perspective has to be respected on these issues, and
it is really important.
That said, I would like to start by asking Ms. Calder a
question. Welcome to the hearing. Over the last several years
the Federal Government has directed a tremendous amount of
money toward housing, and yet I am hearing every day from
constituents, literally every day, that they are having trouble
finding affordable housing. So my question is, have you done
any research about what the net effect is of spending all this
money on housing and having it appear not to solve the problem?
Ms. Brown Calder. Well, I have done a little bit of
research on that. A few years back I looked at the places that
HUD spending was directed, and I found that it was directed to
States that have the highest level of regulation. So in places
that are restrictively zoned, in places that have restrictive
land use regulations, that is where the HUD subsidies were
going. And I think that is really problematic and probably, you
know, is one reason why we have this sort of situation where we
are spending billions every year--we just increased to $70
billion a year annually that we are spending at HUD--and at the
same time we are not seeing reductions in the number of people
that are cost burdened or severely cost burdened. And I think
that is probably why. We are sort of rewarding places that have
these really restrictive zoning and land use regulations that
stifle housing supply, and that directly affects housing
affordability.
Senator Lummis. Well, that segues into my next question,
which is, another uniqueness of States in the American West,
Wyoming is half Federal land. Utah is two-thirds Federal land.
Nevada is almost seven-eighth Federal land. And so some of our
communities are landlocked by Federal land, and that has placed
a unique constraint on housing.
So can you talk about how we could instead use Federal
lands to help solve the housing problem?
Ms. Brown Calder. Absolutely. Well, I really like the bill
that you cosponsored, the HOUSES Act. I believe you were a
cosponsor on that bill.
Senator Lummis. Yes.
Ms. Brown Calder. I am really a fan of that bill. And that
bill would allow local governments to nominate Federal lands
and purchase them and use them to develop housing at a certain
housing density level. There are requirements on how dense the
housing needs to be. I think that is really valuable. I think
people that do not live in the West or Intermountain West, they
do not realize how much of the West and Intermountain West are
Federal lands, and they do not realize that most of those
Federal lands, no, they are not national parks, they are not
national monuments. They are Bureau of Land Management land.
They are land that is grazing or mining or energy-producing
land.
And, you know, that land is also close to city boundaries.
It is close to city borders. There was a report that was
published that looked at Utah, specifically, and found that
650,000 acres of BLM and Forest Service land were within a mile
of Utah cities. And so this is not land that is far off, you
know, hinterlands. It is close to city boundaries, and I think
it could make a difference from a housing supply perspective.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. And one quick question for Mr.
Tisler, because I am about out of time. How can manufactured
housing, tiny homes, and innovations help in this space?
Mr. Tisler. They are definitely, again, the tool to address
the supply issue, and being able to look at zoning issues, to
be able to get tiny homes on properties in urban communities,
suburban communities, need to be addressed. I think that there
are answers for either senior living, family living,
intergenerational living in terms of looking at manufactured
housing, ADUs, and tiny homes on properties. And so that should
be looked at as an answer to the issue.
Senator Lummis. I like your ideas about intergenerational
housing. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
Senator Warner, from Virginia, is recognized.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing, and, you know, I want to agree with some
of the conversations from colleagues on both sides. We do need
to do regulatory streamlining and put more tools in the tool
chest on how we get this right.
I do think we have got to deal with supply as well, and I
think we have got bipartisan support on things like LIHTC, the
Low-Income Tax Credit, the New Market Tax Credit. I think
Senator Cardin and our former colleague, Senator Portman, had a
really interesting idea in the Neighborhood Homes Investment
Tax Credit, how you take some of that older housing, that
happens in communities in my State, communities in the West,
that needs that refurbishment to be brought back onto the
marketplace, and I think we ought to be proceeding ahead on all
of those, and I will come to a question in a moment.
But I also think we need to do more on home ownership. I
was back in the office and heard a little bit of Senator
Scott's opening comments. We have a huge racial wealth gap in
this country, roughly 10 to 1 White-Black ratio, a lot of that
due to home ownership differentials. And I think we have to be
a lot more creative. One of the things I have been working on
for a while is recognizing that the current makeup of the House
and the Senate, we probably are not going to get a lot of
additional Federal dollars for downpayment assistance.
But I am working on an approach that would provide an
employer-based tax credit so that an employer could give a
downpayment to an employee on a tax-free basis. And when we
think about, for example, health care workers in rural
communities, having that incentive where the hospital system
might be able to help make that downpayment in a way that would
retain that employee, it helps in terms of home ownership. It
also helps in terms of retention on the workforce.
And I am going to come to you now, Mr. Tisler, on the
question, because I think you were kind enough to mention
another initiative I put forward in your opening remarks, and
that is the LIFT Act, which I think is, again, self-serving
perhaps, but really creative. It says first-generation, first-
time homebuyers, if you can qualify for a traditional, 30-year
mortgage, within certain income bands, the subsidy we would
give you would be to actually take that 30-year mortgage
payment and give you a 20-year mortgage. So that first-
generation, first-time homebuyer still has to meet the criteria
but over 10 years literally would accumulate double the equity.
Disproportionately that would help communities of color all
across, and it also would help a lot of rural communities,
where that access to that first-time home purchase is a real
mountain to climb.
So with that setup, Mr. Tisler, these kinds of issues of
how we deal with home ownership, racial wealth gap, getting
those first-generation folks of all backgrounds into a home,
and whether a program like the LIFT Act might help that
progress along.
Mr. Tisler. Thanks, Senator. The LIFT Act is definitely one
of the tools that can help that, be able to put it together
with some small-dollar lending in terms of looking at $70,000
or below, looking at CDFI lending, and really marrying that
together and saying, OK, first generation, you are going to
accelerate your equity. And that is the right direction to go
in terms of that, and the subsidy stays in there for a very
long time. It is not as if it is something that could be bought
and sold, you know, in the first 5 years or so.
So in terms of looking at innovative approach of looking at
things along those lines, that is really what we need from a
bipartisan support to address those issues. The banks are still
getting to make their money, the homebuilders, the realtors,
everybody else, but the homeowner is going to be able to build
that equity, and our communities of color need things just like
this to be able to move them forward.
Senator Warner. And the fact is if we can get, again,
first-generation, first-time homebuyers that ability to build
equity twice, that then helps in terms of the ability to not
get deep in debt when your kid needs to go to college, because
you have got the equity that you can draw down upon.
You mentioned my other favorite buzz term, and beyond buzz
term, CDFIs. One of the things that, again, I share with my
Republican colleagues, actually under President Trump we got
$12 billion into CDFI lending, again, for low- and moderate-
income lending across the country, and we need to do a better
job of creating a secondary market. Of that $12 billion, $3
billion went for grants, $9 billion went as Tier 1 equity into
these institutions.
This is a part of our overall financial system that needs
more attention. I am glad that we have been able to create a
CDFI caucus, 8 Republicans, 8 Democrats, here in the Senate,
and I know one of my colleagues, Senator Smith, in particular,
has worked on CDFI issues. I would welcome particularly some of
my newer colleagues that we might work on CDFIs. I think there
is a lot of opportunity there. And if we could create that
secondary market for some of these CDFI loans and bespoke
programs, I think we would go a long way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Vance, from Ohio, is recognized.
Senator Vance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to direct some
questions about Housing First to Ms. Calder and to Ms. Yentel,
and I want to sort of introduce this by, you know, when I was a
kid we had a neighbor move in next door to us, actually, and I
lived with my grandmother. She was a particularly troubled
person, suffered with some serious substance abuse problems.
And I remember one case in particular where she called the
landlord, who was actually a family friend of ours, because
before she moved in this person lived there, and said, you
know, ``I have got a leaky ceiling problem.'' And the guy
showed up and investigated, and the woman had passed out--she
was on drugs--on the bottom floor, and on the top floor she had
set a bath to run, and caused the leaky ceiling, and, in fact,
destroyed the entire upper level of the house, was that she had
set a bath and then gotten high and passed out.
And I think it illustrates a particular problem with some
of the approaches that we have taken to homelessness and
housing where we tend to want to address so-called Housing
First without addressing the root causes of homelessness. And I
worry about this in this particular context, because whether it
is in our urban communities or in our rural communities, if we
do not treat the root cause of homelessness we end up creating
cycles of despair where even when you get women like this into
a good home, ultimately it can be very destructive and not
ultimately solve the very problem that we are trying to solve.
So I guess the very first question I ask, first to Ms.
Calder, is do you think that we should allow people who have
serious substance abuse problems, should we be giving them
housing without any preconditions on substance abuse counseling
therapy and so forth?
Ms. Brown Calder. Look, I think that the homeless
population is a diverse population, and so from my perspective
it does not make sense to have a one-size-fits-all policy. I
think Housing First, it is an idea that has been adopted pretty
rigidly in places like California. There are complaints in
California from shelters that are women and children shelters
only, and they say, ``Look, we cannot get any State funding for
our homeless efforts here, but we are doing a really important
job here.'' We need to have rules around substance use, and the
reason for that is that these women that come into these
shelters, a lot of times they are fighting for custody. They
want to secure custody of their kids, and it is hard to do that
in an environment where people are using substances.
So I think that there should be--you know, I think we
should let all different types of homeless approaches, you
know, bloom, and have a lot of diversity in that regard, and I
think that unfortunately Housing First has been adopted in some
places and that diversity has been sort of squelched.
Senator Vance. Yeah, and I just want to build on that
before turning to you, Ms. Yentel. As I understand it, the
problem with Housing First is precisely the one-fits-all
approach. In other words, you can take housing programs that
are attempting to treat the root cause of homelessness but then
you are denying them Federal funds if they are not following
the so-called Housing First approach.
And I guess, Ms. Yentel, I just ask directly, do you agree
with that approach, and I would love to hear why or why not.
Ms. Yentel. Yeah, thank you for the question, Senator
Vance. First, the root cause of homelessness, the one thing
that all people experiencing homelessness have in common, is
lack of access to a decent, stable, affordable home. And the
research and the evidence are very clear that if people have
substance abuse challenges or mental illness, they are best
able to address those challenges from a stable home. So low-
barrier Housing First approaches that get people into
affordable, stable homes, and then provide them with voluntary,
supportive services as necessary, is shown again and again in
the research and the evidence to be the most effective way to
address homelessness.
And there are a number of examples in your State of Ohio,
very successful Housing First programs that work with people
experiencing homelessness who do not have substance abuse or
mental health challenges and those who do. And in both cases,
it is the Housing First approach, that low-barrier approach to
getting somebody stably housed first that works.
We tried sobriety requirements back in the '80s and the
'90s as a country. That was our approach to addressing
homelessness. We had a stairstep model where people had to
prove that they were so-called ``housing ready.'' It did not
work, and it was overly expensive.
Senator Vance. So a couple of points on that, Ms. Yentel.
So first of all it is interesting to contrast the '80s and '90s
with where we are today because while we have been trying a
Housing First-based approach the past few years in this
country, as I understand it we are spending about 200 percent
more on providing homes to the homeless, 200 percent more on
homeless support than we were when we were not trying Housing
First. And yet, simultaneously, the homeless population in the
country has gone up 20 percent.
So certainly it is a bad deal for the taxpayer, but more
importantly for the homeless, if we are spending twice as much
or more and yet we have seen the homeless problem get worse in
this country.
I think a related point--I know I am short on time here so
I will yield after just making this point--I really worry about
the social contagion effect on this, because it is not, of
course, just the homeless people themselves who are affected
but it is the people they share a neighborhood or people they
share a building complex with.
And I really worry that what Housing First has done is
taken a lot of people who are very much struggling and very
much deserving of our compassion--though I think how we provide
that compassion is up for debate--but it also introduces, you
know, people with serious drug problems, serious mental illness
problems into communities with kids who are already in a very
unstable situation, and now they are having things like drug
use normalized around them.
And that is certainly what you see in some of the
neighborhoods where you have people moving in who are
struggling in very significant ways. Sometimes those behaviors
can become normalized to the kids around them, and I worry
about that, and I worry that the Housing First approach is
focusing just on the homeless population, and failing, by the
way, but also it is ignoring a lot of the kids who are affected
by this Housing First approach. Again, if Housing First is
working, why is it not working? The homeless problem is getting
worse.
Ms. Yentel. Can I answer?
Chair Brown. Sure.
Ms. Yentel. Do I have time to answer that?
Chair Brown. Go head, Ms. Yentel. Yeah, that is fine. Go
ahead, Ms. Yentel.
Ms. Yentel. So again, with respect, the evidence and the
data are so clear that Housing First does work, and it works in
your State of Ohio. We know how to end homelessness. In fact,
individuals have their homelessness ended every day, in Ohio
and throughout the country. What we cannot do is stem the tide
of people newly falling into homelessness as rents increase
much faster than incomes do.
And to the point of mental illness and substance abuse and
contagion, I would just say that there are many people who are
safely housed who suffer from mental illness and substance
abuse, and I think we do not hear the same concerns about
contagion raised there. It is because their substance abuse is
not as public because they have the ability to close their door
at night and get the services and resources that they need
while they are housed.
I would love to also just note that there are many
different types of people experiencing homelessness, and
actually the majority of people who do experience homelessness
are working households or households who have struggled with
being able to make ends meet as rents skyrocket and their
incomes do not meet the increased rent as well.
I would love to have a follow-up conversation with you and
to introduce you to some of the Housing First providers in Ohio
who could share with you their success with the program.
Chair Brown. Thanks, Senator Vance. Thanks, Ms. Yentel.
Senator Warren, of Massachusetts, is recognized.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So our country faces a shortage of over 7 million homes,
and families across this country, in cities, in suburbs, in
rural areas have seen their rents and their mortgage payments
skyrocket. Addressing this challenge is going to take major
Federal investment to expand the supply of housing, and the
longer we hold out on this the harder it is going to be to
solve this problem and help families.
Today, though, I want to focus on one piece of the
problem--the housing crisis in Indian country. In 2018, the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a report called
``Broken Promises'', which found that the Federal Government
has woefully underfunded programs for Native people across the
board--in health care, in education, in public safety, and yes,
in housing. The barriers that tribes face in accessing existing
Federal resources has compounded the housing challenges for
families living on tribal lands.
Ms. Yentel, your organization, NLIHC, has done extensive
research on our country's affordable housing needs, including
the housing needs in Indian country. Can I ask you just to
describe the current state of tribal housing?
Ms. Yentel. Yes. Thank you, Senator Warren. Families in
tribal communities have some of the worst housing needs in the
country. They are five times more likely to live in deep
poverty and in poor housing conditions than the general
population. They are five times more likely to live in homes
that lack indoor plumbing. They are four times more likely to
live in homes that lack a refrigerator, a sink, or a stove.
They are much more likely to have heating issues in their homes
as well. And overcrowding and homelessness is also a
significant challenge in tribal lands. About 16 percent of
families in tribal communities live in overcrowded housing,
compared to about 2 percent in the general population.
Senator Warren. Thank you for your research on this. This
is just an incredibly bleak picture.
A 2017 HUD report found that at least 68,000 new units--and
that is probably an underestimate--are needed to address
substandard and overcrowded housing conditions on tribal lands.
And yet Federal funding for tribal housing programs, programs
that are critical for developing new housing, for performing
essential upkeep on existing homes that are falling apart, and
for keeping families in homes has all stagnated. We need to
build more housing. We need to build better housing in Indian
country to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to its
trust and treaty responsibilities.
Now one place we could start is by ensuring that Indian
country can access the full array of Federal programs that
support affordable development and preservation, particularly
in rural areas. And that is why I am introducing a bill to
guarantee that tribes receive at least 5 percent of the rural
housing resources provided by the United States Department of
Agriculture.
Ms. Yentel, would my bill help address the housing
challenges that families face on tribal lands today?
Ms. Yentel. It would. The tribal communities that have the
most significant housing challenges tend to be those that are
rural and remote--in the Plains, in the Southwest, in Alaska--
and one of the challenges that they face is that they are not
able to access other resources from Federal departments, in
part because the population of those tribes is often
undercounted and so they are not able to get the resources that
actually they are entitled to and certainly need. So your bill
would certainly help ensure that some of these poorest
communities with the greatest housing needs could access a
whole array of resources that could help with development in
their communities.
Senator Warren. Thank you. That is a really important point
you made.
You know, there is a clear need not only for additional
Federal housing resources on tribal lands but also ensuring
that the tribal nations can access these resources in the first
place, and that is what this bill is all about. So I look
forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill passed
and to start making good on our Nation's promise to Native
people.
I want to close with one last point in my remaining seconds
here. Today's hearing is about bipartisan solutions to this
country's housing challenges, and my bill does this without
adding any new funding. But we know what addressing the housing
crisis across this country is going to take--more Federal
investment to build more homes. And yet we have too many
Republicans who have said they will not support meaningful
housing investments. In fact, we have Republicans now who are
threatening to default on our national debt unless they can get
cuts to housing resources, among other vital programs they are
trying to cut.
So I hope my colleagues will come to the table, get serious
about doing what we need to do to solve the housing crisis for
American families. It is important that we do this, and it is
important in red States, blue States, everywhere in America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Warren.
Senator Britt, from Alabama, is recognized.
Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on Senator Vance's line of questioning,
Mrs. Calder that he did not get to finish with time permitting.
Last month, we had a Subcommittee hearing about the Federal
strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Among other
things, we were told that specifically, from the Biden
administration housing policies, if you look at the Housing
First initiatives and those policies, that they were working
and some of the people before us were advocating for those.
But in an article that you wrote in February of this year,
you suggested that these same policies, with a hefty price tag,
often do not accomplish the goal of combatting homelessness. In
fact, you stated that the year that California implemented the
Housing First statewide, from 2016 to 2022, chronic
homelessness actually increased by 93 percent.
Mrs. Calder, in your opinion has the Housing First strategy
been successful enough to justify the hefty price tag?
Ms. Brown Calder. So I would say no, in general. Now, I
think, you know, earlier Diane mentioned that Housing First
just works, the research just says that it works. I think we
have to be really careful about what do we mean by ``works.''
If we mean by ends chronic homelessness, if we mean reduces
chronic homelessness, this is what most people think of when
they think of Housing First working or a homeless policy
working.
Now does it end homelessness for some of the beneficiaries,
for the beneficiaries that receive those permanent housing
subsidies? I think you could argue that yes, for them it does.
But in terms of big picture, is it reducing the number of
homeless people, the number of chronically homeless people,
that is the great that it targets specifically, the answer, at
least in two of the places that it has been adopted, is
resoundingly no, based on the data.
Utah is actually the first place to adopt Housing First,
back in 2005, and in Utah homelessness has increased by 93
percent. You mentioned California, where it has increased by 95
percent.
In Houston, Texas, we have a little bit of a different
situation where actually they adopted--so adding some nuance
into the conversation, they have adopted Housing First, and
actually they have reduced homelessness there. I think that
Houston is a pretty unique situation. Houston has a variety of
different things going for it, one of which is that it lacks a
traditional zoning code, has a very prodevelopment culture, and
has a very responsive housing supply. We know that zoning
regulations, having relatively more zoning regulations, is
associated with having a greater degree of homelessness. So I
think that is something that other places could look at as
something that would bolster their efforts at rental assistance
and at homeless policy.
Senator Britt. Earlier this year we had economist, Dr.
Diaz, and he discussed the regulatory burden in homebuilding
before this very Committee. According to the National
Association of Home Builders, over 40 percent of multifamily
development costs come from Government regulations. If one of
our goals here is to increase housing affordability, then the
answer seems clear--we have to fix the overly burdensome
regulatory environment. Would you agree?
Ms. Brown Calder. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Britt. Can you briefly discuss some of the land use
regulatory obstacles and how they are affecting housing prices,
please?
Ms. Brown Calder. Yes. There are so many obstacles.
Honestly, it is such a pervasive program. I think most people
really do not know. I studied urban planning for my
undergraduate degree so I am very familiar with all of the
various urban, land use, and zoning regulations that affect
development. They affect every element of development. You
know, some of the worst, from a housing supply perspective
regulations are things like minimum lot sizes. In some places
these require that homeowners buy lots that are 1 acre or 2
acres or more even. Obviously, that is not going to be
affordable if you want to put down a tiny home or a little
modular unit or something. That is going to undercut the
economics of doing something like that.
There are also things like parking regulations that really
push up the cost of rent. There was a study that found that
parking requirements push up the cost of rent by 17 percent for
renters. That is a really significant regulation as well.
But anything that relates to density, that limits density,
certainly just broad single-family home zoning that does not
allow anything but single-family homes to be built is something
that limits density very restrictively, and so that is
something that a lot of States and local governments are
looking at reforming now.
Senator Britt. Thank you.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Britt.
Senator Van Hollen, of Maryland, is recognized.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of
you for your testimony. I think we all agree that we are facing
an affordable housing crisis in the country, and it is based
both on a lack of supply overall, but also I believe the lack
of enough support for affordable housing from the Federal
level. And we need action on all levels. As you just said, Ms.
Calder, the local component of this is important, restrictive
zoning. At the State level they have an important role to play.
At the Federal level we are looking at options for the Federal
Government on a bipartisan basis to address some of the issue.
And Senator Young and I have been working for years on a
bipartisan bill called the Family Stability and Opportunity
Vouchers Act. We just reintroduced that bill yesterday because
the Chairman and the Ranking Member have been looking for
bipartisan options to address some of these issues. This bill
would provide 250,000 mobility vouchers to families with young
children. So in addition to providing more affordable housing
options, research from Raj Cheddy and others has demonstrated
that this also has the benefit of allowing families to move to
areas of opportunity, areas with good schools, safe
neighborhoods.
So if you could, Ms. Yentel, you and your coalition have
been working on this for a very long time. We are appreciative
of your efforts. If you, and then Mr. Tisler, could just talk
about why this would be an important bipartisan initiative,
assuming you agree.
Ms. Yentel. Absolutely, Senator Van Hollen. We are so
thrilled for your leadership and thankful for your leadership
and so glad to have this important bipartisan legislation
reintroduced this Congress. I really urge this Committee and
this Congress to move it forward quickly. Housing Choice
Vouchers generally are proven effective at addressing and
ending homelessness, housing instability, displacement, a
highly effective tool.
And making more vouchers available to families with young
children then has exponential positive impact for those
families and those kids, as you said, Raj Chetty's research,
really groundbreaking research, made clear the long-term, over
a child's lifetime, the long-term positive impact that can come
when that family has an ability to live in a neighborhood with
higher-performing schools, better access to transportation,
higher-paying jobs, et cetera. There is tremendous positive
benefit for those children, for the families, for the
community, and really, over time, for the country because
savings are found when we have such positive effects.
So this legislation would really significantly address
family homelessness and housing instability for households and
communities across the country, and we urge its quick passage.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Mr. Tisler.
Mr. Tisler. Senator Van Hollen, thank you very much. I just
want to say that there are some incredible NeighborWorks
organizations in your State, NHS of Baltimore being one of them
that are really looking into this in terms of looking at
vouchers and things along those lines.
Being able to have families in high-opportunity
neighborhoods is incredibly important. It increases the health,
education, and economic well-being of those families. And so
being able to use these vouchers to go into high-opportunity
neighborhoods will be a benefit for everybody. People talk
about the benefits of mixed income. This is a bill that will
actually show that it actually works. And so we are looking
forward to supporting you and others in terms of making this
happen, because everybody should have that opportunity, and
this allows that to happen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Ms. Calder, I do not know if
you have any comment on these. These are affordable housing
vouchers especially designed with some wraparound services to
help families with young kids, which is why I think it has been
a bipartisan initiative. I would be interested in your
thoughts.
Ms. Brown Calder. Thank you. Yes, I like tenant-based
assistance. I like tenant-based vouchers. I think that it is a
superior option as compared with supply side or production
subsidies. And a lot of the reason why it is a superior option
is because it allows for that mobility, economic mobility,
geographic mobility, and it helps to avoid these concentrations
of poverty that we get with other programs like public housing,
like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. There is a lot of
research to support that that has just come out recently.
So I think that the focus should be on moving toward
tenant-based rental assistance. I guess I would just prefer
that, you know, various supply side or production side
subsidies that are not being effectively used right now, they
could be repurposed toward tenant-based assistance.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Cramer, of North Dakota, is recognized.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
of our witnesses for being here. And Ms. Yentel, I want to
start with you because, first of all, the Chairman was kind to
highlight Senator Coons' and my Choice in Affordable Housing
Act. You highlighted it in a response to Senator Tester
earlier, so I want to give you an opportunity to expand on it a
little bit more. This is legislation that Senator Coons and I
introduced last session, reintroduced it, good bipartisan
support from the Committee and former Committee Members.
Senator Smith is on it, Senator Warnock, Senators Tillis and
Moran.
And what we do is we offer, PHAs opportunity to offer
security deposit assistance to tenants, and then assigning
bonus to the landlord as well with a unit in an area that is in
demand or in need. I think it is an area with less than 20
percent poverty in that area.
Could you just elaborate a little bit on the importance of
the legislation, which you have done already to a degree, and
then specifically, how would the changes that are proposed in
the bill specifically strengthen existing Housing Choice
opportunities and the voucher program that you were just
talking about.
Ms. Yentel. Yes. Thank you, Senator Cramer, and thank you
for reintroducing this important bipartisan legislation. The
bill would, as the name implies, increase the ability for
tenants who have Housing Choice Vouchers to choose where to
live based on what is best for themselves and their families.
And it increases choice in a couple of ways. One, through
increasing landlord participation in the program, which has
been decreasing in recent years and is obviously an essential
part of the program working.
Senator Cramer. Which is what inspired me to try to get on
this bill and improve it.
Ms. Yentel. Yeah. So the incentives you mentioned can
increase landlord participation. The bill would also streamline
and simplify some of the requirements around the program,
especially the inspection process, which may also bring more
landlords to the table. And it also increases choice for the
tenant by making the worth of the voucher more reflective of
the local market where they want to rent through implementing
small-area FMRs. That would also be a significant change, an
important change, and improvement to the overall program.
Senator Cramer. Yeah. One of the things that, again, when
Senator Coons first came to me with it, you know, I like the
idea of vouchers. I like the idea of dealing with the demand
side. But a demand side without a supply side, with inadequate
balance of incentives, really does not do a heck of a lot of
good. So that was, I think, the balance, at least that I was
trying to strike.
I want to just spend a couple of minutes, to wrap up, going
back to the topic that Senator Tillis raised with regard to
this very perverse ruling from the Financial Housing Finance
Agency on mortgages. And I want to underscore of the things
that is so ironic to me in their proposal, that somehow people
with a higher credit score would be subsidizing people with a
lower credit score, presuming that you are helping people at
the lower income level. And I want to underscore that if the
proposal incorrect assumes that people with a higher credit
score are naturally people with more money, the two are not
necessarily hand in hand.
If we are going to have some sort of an incentive like
that--well, first of all, I think it is a really awful idea,
that you would punish the high performers this way. But it is
even crazier when you consider that the high performers are
oftentimes people like my parents were, never above middle-
middle class but always paid their bills, and a great credit
score by today's standards if they were alive today. The idea
that somehow they would have to subsidize somebody who makes
three times as much money just because their credit score was
better than that person just makes zero sense to me. So I hope
they rethink this whole crazy proposal.
Ms. Brown Calder, do you want to comment a little bit back
on that, since I have 35 seconds left, on the previous topic of
the vouchers, and how the incentives on the landlord side may
either help, or you may disagree.
Ms. Brown Calder. Yeah, thank you so much. I think, from
what I have heard, speaking to organizations that try to secure
these vouchers for tenants, what I have heard from them is that
in a lot of cases the landlords, it is not that they do not
want to do this good thing, of providing space for these
tenants. It is that they do not want to work with HUD. There is
too much, I guess, bureaucracy, checking, paperwork, whatever,
what have you. And so rather than work with HUD, in some cases,
you know, down in Houston, what they have done is actually
landlords have just given away their unit. They just say, ``We
would rather just give this to you than work with HUD.''
So I think that, you know, rather than trying to
incentivize landlords to take this kind of bonus money, it
would be really good to look into what are those underlying
reasons that landlords are worried about dealing with HUD to
begin with, and see if there is a way to reform some of those.
Senator Cramer. And the bill does do some of that. It does
streamline some of the inspection process, things like that. So
we are trying to find a balance both on the supply and demand
side. But thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
Senator Cortez Masto, from Nevada.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the Ranking Member for having this hearing. It is so
important. Obviously, affordable housing in all of our
communities is essential.
Let me just start by saying thank you to all of my
colleagues on the bipartisan work that we are talking about,
both on the Choice in Affordable Housing Act that we have been
talking about today, as well as the Family Stability and
Opportunity Vouchers Act. You know, in Nevada we have made
several changes to encourage landlords to accept vouchers. So I
want to thank my colleagues on both sides for the work that
they are doing here.
Housing, affordable housing. In my community, in my State
we have statewide coalitions, State, local, Federal, they all
work together, because housing is about not just homelessness.
It is about workforce housing. It is about senior housing. It
is about veterans housing. It is a number of things that we
need to address to ensure that, at all levels, people can
afford to have that home. And the challenge I have in my State
is all of the above, and it starts--part of that is on building
affordable housing so we can keep the costs low, and the other
part is what we have talked about, so that the individuals that
have housing, whether they want to be owners or renters, they
can do that. And so how does the Federal Government play a role
in both of those?
In the West, in Nevada, when we are building housing, it
starts with the land. And so I so appreciate Senator Lummis'
concerns and talk about at the Federal level, one of our key
partners, unlike the rest of the country, is the Federal
Government because they own most of the land. In my State it is
over 80 percent. So they have to be essential partners when we
are identifying the land to build hopefully affordable housing,
because that is where it starts.
What is the cost of the land to add to this? And so any
work that we can do to address and bring the Federal Government
is part of it. Reduce the bureaucracy is going to be key to
this affordable housing.
I want to talk about one of the pieces of legislation that
I have introduced, which is really to reauthorize the Home
Investment Partnerships Program. I know, Mr. Tisler, you were
asked about this earlier. HOME is the largest affordable
housing block grant. As you all know, it was first authorized
in 1990. My bill would update the HOME program. Some changes
would include improved access for community land trusts so that
we can recycle the subsidy; curb recapture penalties for home
ownership assistance when a servicemember is deployed or a
recipient dies; and allow local governments to leverage future
funds by providing a loan guarantee opportunity with HOME
funds. This is similar to the Community Development Block Grant
Program. My bill also reduces the duplicative inspection
requirements, removes a requirement for property owners with
one to four units maintain a waitlist, and makes it easier for
community housing development organizations to retain an
operational board, among other changes.
So there is a lot to it, to try to figure out how we make
this do away with the bureaucracy. How does it work as part of
the system?
So Mr. Tisler, let me just ask you this. The legislation I
worked on, because I have a lot of servicemembers in my State
as well, the proposal I have in my bill would allow
servicemembers to receive downpayment assistance without fear
of recapture if they were deployed somewhere else. Can you talk
a little bit about why that is important?
Mr. Tisler. Thank you, Senator, and we are so looking
forward to the HOME reauthorization and the modernization and
everything else that you are looking for here. But when we have
servicemembers that are going out to protect our country, we
should not have to penalize them in terms of leaving their
home. And the Federal Government needs to work together across
interagencies to make sure it is not just the HOME program but
other programs too, that when people are deployed there is not
a penalty for that.
And so our organizations, not just in Nevada but across the
country, support what you are doing in terms of this, in a
bipartisan way, to look at our servicemembers.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And then let me jump to
manufactured housing, because we have talked a little bit about
that. But I think this is key for the conservation we are
having here. In Nevada, about 6 percent of families live in
manufactured housing. Some own the land under their homes but
others rent, and renting a lot in a community can lead to high
lot rents, evictions, or sale of the community.
We were able, in the last appropriations bill, to include
legislation that I introduced to create a new grant program to
help manufactured home communities. This program, which is the
Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community
Enhancement, would provide funds to improve infrastructure, add
or upgrade tornado shelters, improve roads, sewer, and water,
and also provide funds to replace outdated mobile homes.
Mr. Tisler, let me start with you. Why should Congress
prioritize the needs of residents of manufactured home
communities?
Mr. Tisler. Senator, I will use the acronym ``price.'' That
way I do not take a lot of the time. But in terms of
manufactured housing, it is very important because it is the
answer to many rural areas. Nonprofit, resident-owned
communities are important to be able to make sure that the
rents are not going up, that they are not being captured by
these institutional investors. And so manufactured housing has
the ability to increase supply in an affordable way, and I
think that moving in that direction has that answer to be able
to do that.
And, you know, we have organizations that talk about energy
efficiency, and it is not for the greening, the climate
perspective. It is about the green in their wallets. And that
is what really happens with this energy efficiency kind of
rehab and things along those lines that are happening in the
bill, for manufactured housing. So it looks at the holistic
point of people's wallets so they can make sure that they are
able to make their payments.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Smith, of Minnesota, is recognized.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks also to our
panelists. I have really enjoyed this conversation and hearing
your very substantive responses to all of our questions.
I think that I hear, Mr. Chair, that there is significant
amount of bipartisan agreement on how we might approach this
and a clear understanding that we have a supply problem. And I
want to just take an opportunity to mention that next week, in
the Housing Subcommittee that I chair, we are going to be
talking about the bill that I have been working on with Senator
Rounds to modernize and improve the Rural Housing Service,
which is a very important USDA strategy for preserving and
expanding access to affordable housing in rural communities.
And I think it touches on a lot of the themes that we have
been talking about today, about taking Federal programs that do
not work quite like they should. They are actually really
cumbersome for property owners as well as renters to use and
modernize it, and make it work better. So I am looking forward
to that Subcommittee hearing with my Ranking Member, Cynthia
Lummis, and I know that it will be a good hearing, and I am
hoping to move that bill forward, Mr. Chair, in the full
Committee as well.
But there has been a lot of conversation, and I want to
shift to talking a bit about this interesting discussion around
zoning and what we need to do around addressing the cost burden
that zoning has on affordable housing. I want to tell a bit of
a story about Minneapolis.
So Minneapolis has really been a strong leader in tackling
the ways--getting rid of exclusionary zoning practices. Here is
an example of the kind of project we are able to do because of
that reform at the local level. I went to a groundbreaking--84
new, denser, affordable units, scattered sites all over the
city. So now no longer in Minneapolis can you say you have only
some parts of the city that are only single family. We have
changed that zoning so that these scattered site units can be
built. It is a public-private partnership with some Federal
dollars, local and State dollars, but a lot of private, but
also a partnership. Modular construction, so as you are talking
about, Senator Cortez Masto, some innovations in construction
that make it more affordable, and we are using IRA tax credits
to help lower energy costs for the folks that are going to be
living in those units.
So to me this is an example of the kind of thing that we
ought to be able to do more when we have some innovation and
reform in local zoning. Still going to be just as safe as they
would have been before. We are not sacrificing. As you said, I
think, Ms. Calder, we do not need to sacrifice health and
safety in order to do the zoning reforms that we want to do.
So let me just ask, really anybody on the panel, a you
think about those kinds of strategies like my hometown of
Minneapolis is deploying to make it easier to build affordable
housing in urban communities, if you have seen other examples
like this and anything else you think our Committee should be
aware of as we think about these bipartisan bills.
Ms. Brown Calder. I am happy to jump in, since this is an
issue that really excites me. Minneapolis really did lead the
way on zoning reform. It is really true. I think Minneapolis
came first, made huge changes away from single-family zoning
and toward duplexes, triplexes as I recall, and that was really
big. And other places followed, including California.
California has made a lot of reforms recently, so we are still
kind of waiting to see how some of those reforms that are just
really recent have turned out.
But I guess as far as other examples of places that have
made successful reforms, you know, ADUs have come up a couple
of times. That is one place that we really have seen success
already in the reforms that have been made, in California, as
an example, in Seattle, Washington, as well, where the number
of ADUs that have been permitted have multiplied 3.5 times in
Seattle since their reform in 2019, and 11 times in California
since their reform.
So I think that is something that is easy kind of low-
stakes reform, if you are looking for sort of initial,
introductory-type zoning reforms that can be made in a lot of
places across the country.
Senator Smith. Ms. Calder, I appreciate what you said about
how also you need to take a comprehensive approach if you want
to get the kind of impact that we are talking about.
Ms. Yentel, let me just go to you quickly. Minneapolis is
also a community that has some of the worst wealth disparities
between Black families and White families, and some of the
greatest segregation, as a result of the kind of exclusionary
zoning that we have had for so many years. This would be a way
of, I think, maybe trying to overcome some of that. Could you
talk about the relationship between equity and these local
zoning rules?
Ms. Yentel. Yes. Very often local zoning ordinances that
restrict multifamily housing from being developed in
communities that are primarily single-family housing have, at
their root, exclusion. They are exclusionary zoning policies,
and they exacerbate segregation and racial inequities. And
reducing local zoning ordinances that prevent multifamily
housing from being built where communities want to live
continues those racial inequities. So it is very important that
States and localities address them.
To the point of what other positive zooming changes are
needed, I think we can just look to the bipartisan Yes In My
Backyard Act, the YIMBY Act, which really lists out all of the
changes that can be made at the State and local level. And that
bill itself has, it sounds like, very strong bipartisan
support, and we should certainly move that forward, and we
should go further to actually incentivize and require States
and localities to make these changes, by tying changes to
Federal dollars.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Fetterman, of Pennsylvania, is recognized.
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tisler, thanks for being here. I know you have
mentioned and are familiar with whole home repairs in your
testimony. I mean, I am really excited by it because here in
Pennsylvania, one of my friends really shepherded it, Nikil
Saval. He was one of the literally, quite literally, as far
left of a politician I am aware of, certainly in the Senate,
who really helped shepherd that. And he got linked up with the
Republicans, and they actually created the first kind of
program like this in the Nation.
And one of my colleagues, Mr. Vance, talked about, well, if
there is a leak in the ceiling, what if you do not have the
money to fix that? What can happen to that? And I come from a
community now, in Braddock, Pennsylvania, where your home can
go back quickly if you were not having those kinds. And so, I
mean, I am incredibly, I think I am excited that that could be
taken from Pennsylvania and go Federal.
You know, what do you think it would be, if that was able
to be made Federal?
Mr. Tisler. Thank you, Senator. I would just say the Whole
Homes Repair Program is something that we are incredibly
excited about. NeighborWorks Northeastern Pennsylvania working
with Wayne County in Pennsylvania, did an incredible job. But I
think in terms of looking at some of the Senators who said, you
know, what about snow on my roof? What about the rain that is
coming, and things along those lines. If you do not address
those issues your house will dilapidate, deferred maintenance
goes down, you then start that whole broken window syndrome in
terms of leading to blight, to leading to crime, to leading to
others.
So being able to have a national home repair program would
be incredible. In Cleveland, 20 years ago, it was oh, if you
build a four-unit townhome that was the greatest thing in the
world. But the other 14,000 structures that were there, they
needed to be addressed to. And so I think that the Whole Homes
Repair Program is incredible.
Senator Fetterman. I have seen it happen again and again,
that a simple leak, which is a cancer for a home, if there is a
leak in the roof it can go dilapidated rapidly. And if you do
not have the money to fix it then that happens. And then that
not only exacerbates the supply issue that you guys were just
talking about.
So really, I am excited about this, and it would be like
working with Senator Casey, of course, in our State, because we
really want to expand on that success here in Pennsylvania.
Ms. Yentel. Senator Fetterman, can I add?
Senator Fetterman. Of course.
Ms. Yentel. One of the parts of the legislation that I
really appreciate is the forgivable loans to multifamily
property owners. And I appreciate how the legislation would
have some requirements of those landlords if the loan is to be
forgiven: that they establish important tenant protections like
protections against exorbitant rent hikes, allowing for leases
to be extended for 3 years, and also requiring that those
landlords accept Section 8 vouchers. I think that is a really
important model to set for new Federal programs to have those
kinds of ties for tenant protections for any kind of new
benefits for property owners and landlords.
Senator Fetterman [presiding]. Thank you to the witnesses
today for being here today and providing testimony. For
Senators who wish to submit questions for the record, those
questions are due a week from today, on Wednesday, May 3rd. To
the witnesses, you have 45 days to respond to any of those
questions.
Thank you again. With that this hearing is adjourned. Thank
you for coming.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR SHERROD BROWN
In February we heard from witnesses about the housing challenges
that families and their communities face.
We heard that more than two-thirds of families aren't able to
afford to buy a typical new home.
We heard about how local exclusionary zoning policies--from minimum
lot sizes to parking requirements--combine with process delays are to
shut out new construction.
We heard about the rising costs facing renters, especially working
class renters, and how few homes are available for them--including in
rural areas.
And we heard about the need to repair the homes we already have, by
making them safer, more efficient, and more accessible for families,
including seniors.
We've been hearing about these challenges for years--and not just
from renters and homeowners themselves, but from community leaders and
businesses.
Because a shortage of affordable housing isn't just a housing
problem. It's an education problem. It's a health care problem. It's an
economic growth problem.
In Ohio, I've heard from mayors and sheriffs and cops, from
Lancaster to Grove City to Lima, that first responders who work in
these communities want to live there, and can't. That makes it hard to
recruit and retain the kind of young, diverse talent they need to keep
their communities working and keep them safe.
In Cleveland, a coalition ranging from hospitals to schools to
community groups has banded together on an innovative education and
investment campaign to prevent lead poisoning.
And as new jobs come to Central Ohio, everyone from mayors to the
CEOs of more than 80 of the largest institutions in the region are
talking about the need to invest in affordable housing to attract and
support workers.
These challenges are playing out in every State. Our constituents
are calling on us to address them.
At today's hearing, we'll start examining proposals to make housing
more affordable, safer, and easier to find. And we'll work toward
finding common ground on commonsense solutions this Committee can
advance.
Many members, on both sides of the aisle, have put forward ideas.
That includes Ranking Member Scott's ROAD to Housing proposal,
which I'm sure he will touch on today.
It also includes Senator Coons and Senator Cramer's Choice in
Affordable Housing Act, which aims to get more landlords involved in
the voucher program.
Senators Van Hollen and Young have authored the Family Stability
and Opportunity Vouchers Act, to help support low-income families,
including families who want to move to areas with better schools and
more job opportunities.
Senator Cortez Masto has also put forward a reauthorization of the
HOME Investment Partnerships Program, to help States and communities
address our Nation's changing housing needs.
There are also a number of Members off of this Committee who have
developed proposals to address our housing needs.
That includes Senator Casey, who has been working on a proposal to
address blighted properties, drive community revitalization, and
support affordable housing development by supporting and strengthening
local land banks.
I've also been working with Senator Casey and Senator Collins on
the Grandfamily Housing Act, which would support the housing needs of
grandparents who become the primary caregivers for their grandchildren.
It also includes Senator Bennet, who led our bipartisan Eviction
Crisis Act, to help prevent unnecessary evictions and the harm that's
caused when children and parents are suddenly uprooted and have no
place to call home.
And Senators Schatz and Collins, who authored the Reforming
Disaster Recovery Act to help our country better recover from the
increasing number of natural disasters facing communities across the
country.
In addition to today's hearing, next week Senators Smith and Lummis
will hold a hearing on the unique housing challenges facing rural
communities, which is another important piece of this discussion.
Work to address our housing shortage isn't just limited to our
Committee. The Finance Committee is also discussing important
proposals, like the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act and the
Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, that, along with proposals out of
this Committee, could help support more affordable housing development
for renters and homeowners.
We may not all agree on every idea, but today's hearing is another
important step as we continue our work to build consensus on
legislation that can help address the many challenges facing the people
and communities that we represent.
I want to thank Ranking Member Scott and all of the Members who are
here today for being part of this important, bipartisan discussion.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM SCOTT
On April 11, we celebrated the 55th anniversary of the Fair Housing
Act of 1968, a triumph for civil rights by outlawing discrimination in
housing. While it's important to celebrate these victories, we can't
turn a blind eye to progress. It's our responsibility to consider
whether progress has indeed been made--or if we need to switch gears
and critically rethink how we deliver on these goals.
Unfortunately, our housing policies are not resulting in the true
benefits and advancements that our hardest hit families deserve.
Despite spending trillions of dollars on subsidies for affordable
housing, the home ownership rates for minorities haven't changed since
a couple years after the [Fair] Housing Act was passed. An unacceptable
reality.
And on top of that, we have all seen the rise in homelessness over
the last several years, despite spending more on homelessness programs
than ever before. Something is clearly not working.
Additionally, HUD research tells us that the average length of stay
for families across all HUD-assisted housing programs has nearly
doubled [from] 1995 through 2015. Federal programs are meant to
transition people out of poverty, not keep them in poverty. How long
before we realize that throwing more money [at] solutions that aren't
working is a problem, particularly for those residents living in
Government-assisted housing? We need a more thoughtful, opportunity-
building solution than [we've been] working on so far.
Should we continue to double down on last century's policies, that
seemingly failed to solve last century's problems? The answer is
obviously no.
In fact, it's time for a new approach. An approach that gives
Americans who have lost hope a roadmap to opportunity and prosperity--
one that combines proven, bipartisan policies with new solutions. I am
introducing a discussion draft of my legislation, the Renewing
Opportunity in the American Dream, or ROAD to Housing Act.
Before we dive into some of the policies we are considering in this
legislation, I have a few requests to make.
For the witnesses with us today sharing your expertise, and all
other stakeholders working to make the American dream a reality for
those who today seem to think that it's elusive or unachievable: I
would love your expertise as we craft legislation and keep it as a part
of the road to the American dream. I ask for your input.
To the other Senators here today: I ask that all of us would put
aside whether we're on the Left or the Right, and think about helping
more Americans achieve the American dream.
[To] the American public who might be watching us today, all 35 of
those watching C-SPAN, hoping to find a path towards prosperity: I've
said before that success is created not here in Washington in hearing
rooms, but actually they are typically created in apartments and
garages, at kitchen tables, and in classrooms across this great Nation.
Let's craft laws and policies that help pave the pathway to home
ownership.
The ROAD to Housing Act introduces new and needed reforms across
all sectors of our housing market. These proposals are meant to be a
departure from the stale, partisan ideas that have defined our debates
over Federal housing policy in recent years:
For families looking to buy a home or struggling to stay in one, my
legislation will increase access to high quality housing counseling and
financial literacy programs.
For families in rural America, it will provide access to housing
that suits your needs.
For families in search of entry-level and affordable housing, it
will encourage the construction and financing of lower cost homes.
For families in public housing, it will empower program
administrators to provide better-tailored support and encourage access
to private capital, keeping your homes safe and healthy.
For those who don't have a place to call home, it will ensure that
Federal homelessness programs and funding pays for results, rewarding
communities or programs who have made progress with helping their
homelessness.
And for taxpayers, it will ensure that the Federal agencies
spending your hard-earned dollars are doing so effectively and with
accountability.
Though I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses as they
consider the legislation, we must also acknowledge that the housing
problems we face are broader than this Committee's jurisdiction. A lack
of supply, the costs of complying with Government regulations, and a
shortage of workers all contribute to the shortage of affordable
housing. So, as this legislation develops, we will look forward to
having a conversation about innovative solutions [to] the broader
challenges that we face.
I hope that we can call all of us to the table to address the
housing challenges our country faces, and I look forward to working
with each and every one of you.
One final note. Homes and communities aren't built without hard
work. So, after making requests from everyone else in this room, I want
to make a promise myself, to consistently stay at the table, making
sure that housing affordability is not a hearing, but a theme that
permeates throughout the entire year.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOU TISLER
Executive Director, National NeighborWorks Association
April 26, 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF VANESSA BROWN CALDER
Director of Opportunity and Family Policy Studies, Cato Institute
April 26, 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE YENTEL
President and CEO, National Low Income Housing Coalition
April 26, 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIR BROWN
FROM LOU TISLER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM LOU TISLER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNOCK
FROM LOU TISLER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAMER
FROM LOU TISLER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIR BROWN
FROM DIANE YENTEL
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
CORTEZ MASTO FROM DIANE YENTEL
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNOCK
FROM DIANE YENTEL
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ACTION CAMPAIGN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LETTER SUBMITTED BY J. RONALD TERWILLIGER CENTER FOR HOUSING POLICY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CLICK N' CLOSE, INC.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LETTER SUBMITTED BY COSCDA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HOUSECANARY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY NMHC AND NAA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LETTER SUBMITTED BY ZILLOW
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]