[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]