[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY:
SAVING THE AMERICAN DREAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY
POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 22, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-611 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia James R. Walkinshaw, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
Vacancy
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
Daniel Falcone, Professional Staff Member
Charles Donahue, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
Eric Burlison, Missouri, Chairman
Gary Palmer, Alabama Maxwell Frost, Florida, Ranking
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Member
Byron Donalds, Florida Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Dave Min, California
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Ro Khanna, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Eric Burlison, U.S. Representative, Chairman................ 1
Hon. Maxwell Frost, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member.......... 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Edward J. Pinto, Senior Fellow and Codirector, American
Enterprise Institute Housing Center
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Mr. Buddy Hughes, Chairman of the Board, National Association of
Home Builders
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Ms. Patrice Onwuka, Director, Center for Economic Opportunity,
Independent Women
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Ms. Caroline Nagy (Minority Witness), Associate Director of
Housing Policy, Americans for Financial Reform
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, New York Times, ``Builders Find Hardship in Trump's
Tariffs''; submitted by Rep. Ansari.
* Article, NBC News, ``How Trump's Tariffs Drive Up Home
Construction Costs''; submitted by Rep. Ansari.
* Article, The Heritage Foundation, ``Why an Open Border Means
More Expensive Housing''; submitted by Rep. Burlison.
* Report, Federation of American Immigration Reform, ``Housing
Affordability is an Immigration Issue''; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.
* Written Testimony, Steven Camarota, ``Consequences of Illegal
Immigration for Housing Affordability, Government Budgets, and
Workers''; submitted by Rep. Burlison.
* Article, Urban Institute, ``Mass Deportations Would Worsen
Our Housing Crisis''; submitted by Rep. Frost.
* Fact Sheet, ACEEE, ``NABH's Fictitious Building Code Cost
Claim''; submitted by Rep. Frost.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Mr. Buddy Hughes; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY:
SAVING THE AMERICAN DREAM
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., Room
2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eric Burlison,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Burlison, Higgins, Perry, Frost,
Ansari, and Min.
Mr. Burlison. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to
order.
I welcome everyone for joining us today. Without objection,
the Chair may declare a recess at any time. And I recognize
myself for the purpose of making an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ERIC BURLISON
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
Let us start with the basic reality check. A young American
can work full-time, do everything right, and still have no
realistic path to owning a home, not because they are lazy, not
because they made reckless choices, but because public policy
has made ownership more expensive and further out of reach than
it has been in decades. Only 25 percent of Americans say they
are confident that they can afford to buy a home. More than
half say that they have little or no confidence at all. Housing
affordability is now at a 40-year low.
At the same time, Americans are seeing something that does
not add up. Across the country, people who entered the United
States illegally are living in housing that many working
Americans cannot afford. That is not a talking point; it is a
policy outcome. Young adults who follow the law, entered the
workforce, and tried to build the future are told that they
should accept permanent renting. Meanwhile, the government
programs increase housing demand, subsidize select populations,
and then drive prices higher for everyone else. That is not
fairness. That is displacement. Nearly 1/4 of homeowners and
almost 1/2 of renters spend at least 30 percent of their income
on housing. For millions of families, housing is no longer a
foundation for stability. It is a financial chokepoint.
So, how did we get here? First, the Federal Reserve held
interest rates near zero and injected trillions of dollars into
the economy leading up to and during the COVID pandemic.
Mortgage rates fell sharply, demand surged, and home prices
skyrocketed while housing supply failed to keep pace. Then the
Federal Reserve reversed course, and interest rates climbed to
their highest level since 2008. Americans were left with the
worst possible combination, elevated home prices and sharply
higher borrowing costs. At the same time, the Biden
Administration fueled historic inflation through excessive
Federal spending. Paychecks lost purchasing power while housing
costs continued to rise.
Now consider the supply. The United States is short
somewhere between 3.8 and 8.2 million homes today. By 2035,
that shortage could approach ten million units. Instead of
prioritizing supply, Federal policy increased demand. Mass
illegal immigration placed immediate pressure on housing
markets across the country, especially in working-class
communities. More people competing for too few homes has driven
up rent and prices higher for Americans already struggling to
get ahead.
Washington also has made housing more expensive to build.
Federal regulations on building codes, energy standards, and
home appliances added tens of thousands of dollars to the cost
of constructing or renovating a home. Proposals for nationwide
rent control further discouraged new construction and reduced
the supply. The result is a system that squeezes working
Americans from every direction: higher prices, higher interest
rates, too little supply, and the demand competition driven by
Federal policy. That is not a failure of the free market. It is
a failure of government.
President Trump and congressional Republicans are taking a
different approach. On day one, the President directed his
Cabinet to deliver emergency price relief by expanding housing
supply and eliminating regulations that raise costs. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
Department of Interior are working to make the Federal land
available for housing development. Congress passed H.R. 1 and
the One Big Beautiful Bill, which delivered historic tax relief
for working families and removed barriers to make it harder to
build homes.
The direction is clear. Housing affordability will not be
restored by trapping Americans in permanent rent. It will not
be restored by distorting markets or importing demand into an
already broken system. It will be restored by unleashing
American builders, dismantling the regulatory cartel, and
putting hardworking American families back at the center of
national policy where they belong, and that is why we are here
today.
Mr. Burlison. And with that, I yield to Ranking Member
Frost for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
MAXWELL FROST, REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Chairman Burlison, and thank
you for calling this hearing today on such an important
subject.
Stable housing should be the essential foundation upon
which families in America can build a good life, but housing is
not affordable in this country. Especially my generation has
pretty much given up hope of ever being able to have stable
housing since the cost is high to purchase a home and the
rising cost of rent, student debt, healthcare, and everyday
expenses prevent us from being able to stay housed, let alone
purchase a home. In fact, my office opened up one of the first
satellite congressional offices on a university's campus. I
thought the top issue that people would come and ask us for
help on would be student debt, but in fact the top two were
food insecurity, hungry students, and people who were homeless
and did not have a place to live.
This is a personal thing for me. When I decided to run for
Congress, I experienced homelessness for many months when I was
priced out of my apartment after the rent moratorium hike was
taken away in the State of Florida just after COVID. I always
joked to myself that at least if I won my race for Congress, I
would not deal with housing issues again. I was elected to
Congress, and as a Congressman-elect, I was denied to every
apartment complex I applied to in Washington, D.C. I joked
about having to couch surf on news, not knowing it would become
national news that a new Member of Congress was essentially
homeless in his new place that he would have to work in.
I say this to say this is an issue that is far-reaching
that impacts all Americans. And even when I took out a loan to
be able to pay the high cost of rent moving to D.C., I was
denied the opportunity to pay the high rent too.
First-time homebuyers have been driven down to 21 percent
of the market. And the median age of first-time homebuyer is
now 40 years old, the highest ever recorded. Families are
getting priced out while big money investors are cashing in. In
the first quarter of 2025, investors bought nearly 27 percent
of homes sold, the highest share in at least five years and way
above the number of first-time buyers. That is not a cultural
shift. That is what happens when government tilts the field
toward corporate buyers and then shrugs when regular people
lose.
The commodification of housing has gotten way out of
control. There is a crisis that has been made even worse at
every opportunity by greed and turning the American dream into
a commodified asset. Plus, tariffs, an underdeveloped
workforce, and outdated zoning laws prevent the growth of
housing supply that we need.
I will work with anyone to fix these issues. Congress, as
well as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of
Justice (DOJ), HUD, and Treasury can and must rapidly mobilize
to lower housing costs today, and all it takes is the political
will and focus. For too long, the Federal Government has washed
its hands clean of housing laws, relegating it to being a state
and local issue, but there is a lot we can do at the Federal
Government.
Political will and focus, unfortunately, are absent right
now with the Republican triple majority. In fact, President
Donald Trump is actively making it worse. He is driving up the
cost to build homes through tariffs on construction materials
and fixtures. His reckless immigration policies are going to
shrink our workforce capacity at a time when immigrants make up
about 1/4 of the construction workforce--again, 1/4 of the
construction workforce.
Now facing backlash over high prices, the President is
suddenly saying he is on board with a Democratic proposal to
ban institutional investors from being able to buy single-
family homes. We welcome this. President Trump received a lot
of attention when he announced this month, ``I am immediately
taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying
more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to
codify it.''
But earlier this week, the President revealed the details
of his executive order, and it falls short. This executive
order does not include an outright ban on institutional home
purchases but just limits conventional mortgage guarantees for
these transactions. What he failed to mention is that most of
these transactions happen in cash or outside of Fannie and
Freddie financing and will not be impacted by his executive
order.
For President Trump and congressional Republicans to truly
implement this proposal that the President himself called for,
they must buck the same Wall Street investors and corporations
that they have also been delivering massive tax handouts for.
So, I will believe it when I see it.
But we are here to work together on it. Trump helped to
create the problem that we are in. Blackstone built the leasing
company Invitational Homes into a single-family rental giant
that got rich by buying up houses at distressed prices, and
then it became the template for gentrification, displacement,
and turning our neighborhoods into portfolios. GAO report in
2017, Fannie Mae backed a ten-year, $1 billion loan to
Invitational Homes. Market-based solutions alone are not going
to fix this crisis.
But it gets worse. It is not just corporate ownership that
is driving up housing costs for families. It is also corporate
coordination and extraction. The Biden-era Department of
Justice sued RealPage for colluding to rig rents using
algorithms that drive up prices and harm renters. Then the same
Biden-era DOJ sued six of the Nation's largest landlords for
colluding to rip off American renters, names like Greystar,
Blackstone, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield,
Pinnacle, Willow Bridge and Cortland.
So, my question for all of us here is, if this hearing is
truly about housing affordability, we should really start with
a lot of the rent collusion schemes that we see that the DOJ
itself has said harms millions of renters. We should start by
tightening standards on corporate landlords and their pricing
software. We should start with investors that routinely outbid
families for starter homes. And I invite my Republican
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring legislation that will
help achieve these things.
One of my bills is the End Junk Fees for Renters Act.
Another one is cosponsoring a bill I will soon be introducing
to push back on Wall Street, turning manufactured home
communities into captive revenue streams. This bill
incentivized states to adopt strong opportunity to purchase
protections so manufactured homeowners, especially seniors and
working families on a fixed income, can get a real chance to
buy the land under their home before private equity and other
large investors can swoop in, jack up the cost of the lot rent,
and pile on new fees.
Massive deregulation is very dangerous. And need I not
remind us of things that happened in Florida, such as the
tragic Surfside collapse and other issues like that that we see
across the entire nation. We do not need a hearing where it is
just going to be folks pushing to take away standards that are
important for Americans while enriching big developers and
removing the housing standards that keep bad actors in line.
Getting rid of these protections is not a silver bullet or
strong housing plan. The process can be made faster. We know
this. But we can do that without compromising important
standards that keep working families safe.
So, I am very excited about this hearing. I mentioned why
this is very personal to me. I routinely knock doors in my
district, and the housing crisis is the top one on top of
everyone's minds, Democrats, Republicans, tenants and
homeowners alike. And in my State of Florida, we are
experiencing a housing insurance crisis, the rising cost of
rent, it being too damn expensive. And we are in a situation--I
was asked recently what I think is one of the number one issues
impacting young people, and I said, it is the fact that I am
worried as young people grow older, we will never own a damn
thing in our lives, whether it is our home, to the music we
listen to, to the movies we watch, the car that we drive. And
we are going down that road. And so, housing is something we
have to take care of. I am excited about this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Ranking Member Frost.
I would like to welcome our witnesses today. First, we have
Mr. Edward Pinto, a Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the
Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute. Before
joining AEI, Mr. Pinto was an Executive Vice President and
Chief Credit Officer for Fannie Mae until the late 1980s.
Next, we have Buddy Hughes. Mr. Hughes is the Chairman of
the National Association of Home Builders. He is also in
Lexington, North Carolina, has a home builder business, and has
developed homes for more than 45 years.
Next, we have Patrice Onwuka, the Director of the Center
for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women.
And then last, we have Caroline Nagy, the Associate
Director of Housing Policy at Americans for Financial Reform.
Thank you all for taking time and joining us today for this
very important and timely topic.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), witnesses, if you would
please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you. You can sit down.
All right. You all probably know the drill. Each of you
will have 5 minutes for a statement. During that time, you will
see your light go to yellow, in which you have 1 minute left.
When it goes to red, your time has expired.
And with that, I now recognize Mr. Pinto for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD J. PINTO
SENIOR FELLOW AND CODIRECTOR
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE HOUSING CENTER
Mr. Pinto. Thank you, Chairman Burlison, Ranking Member
Frost, Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity.
The current state of the housing supply is best described
as an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. The
irresistible--the immovable object consists of overly
restrictive land use regulations promulgated by most of the
33,000-plus state and local jurisdictions. That is how many
have zoning and land use power. This leads to unaffordability
and a dearth of starter homes on smaller lots.
The irresistible force the Chairman referred to is the
Federal Government's efforts to make homes affordable by means
of credit easing, subsidies, and acts by the Fed. According to
Realtor.com, returning the housing market to 2019 levels is a
daunting task. Mortgage rates would have to fall to 2.5
percent. They are at about 6.2 percent today. Incomes would
have to rise by 56 percent or home prices fall by 35 percent.
We do not want to have--those types of things are not likely to
happen, and hopefully, we do not have house prices crash.
As recently as yesterday, President Trump cautioned about
creating a lot of housing all of a sudden and driving home
prices down. Yet, inaction has its own risks. Implementation of
multiple demand boosters combined with a strong economy would
ignite strong house price depreciation. We have seen how that
operates. Deregulation is needed to activate frozen capital in
the form of existing stock of housing and land. Land is a form
of capital. This would improve by expanding supply, improve
affordability, and increase home ownership.
I will be talking about many solutions, five of which would
increase home ownership rates. First, we should unlock existing
housing stock frozen by the effects of capital gains treatment;
second, we should incent building of more starter homes
currently made illegal by state and local land use regulations;
and third, we should avoid solutions that only drive demand
higher or have been proven to be ineffective.
Let me return to unlocking existing housing stock frozen by
capital gains, lock-in, and related tax provisions. You could
unlock an estimated 3.2 million rooms out of the 32 million
spare rooms in owner-occupied single-family homes over ten
years by providing an income tax exemption for rental income on
newly rented rooms. These rooms already exist. These would
start adding supply immediately. They are in every
congressional district, largely near amenities, and would rent
at attractive levels. The current vacant capital stock yields
no rental income today. Therefore, it yields no revenue to the
Federal Government, so there would be no revenue loss.
Second, you could eliminate or increase the capital gains
exclusion caps currently at $250,000 and $500,000, and you
could apply that to homeowners over age 65. Those limits were
set in 1997. Consumer prices have doubled since that point,
which would take you to a $500 million number. And house prices
have gone up 200 percent, with even higher numbers.
The capital gains exclusion also applies that the step-up
that occurs when a person dies, the heirs get the step-up in
basis. There are perhaps 100,000 or 200,000 homes that are
sitting vacant that would be put back on the market if there
was not the capital gains. They are waiting for the capital
gains step-up. Providing this incentive to sell and more
rapidly return perhaps two million of these existing larger
family sized homes to the market over ten years has the
potential to unfreeze 200,000 homes each year. This would boost
homeownership.
Next, eliminate capital gains on starter single-family
rentals sold to occupying tenants in good standing with at
least 24 months' on-time rental history. This would boost
homeownership. We estimate there are 13 million households
living in single-family rentals, 77 percent of which are owned
by small investors with one to nine units. Two-thirds of these
are starter homes, average current value $300,000, average rent
of $1,800 a month.
Eighty-five of these--85 percent of these borrowers are
likely unable to qualify for a mortgage, but there are ways to
make this work. First of all, you could do away with the
capital gains if it is sold to a tenant. Second of all, if you
sell to the tenant, of course, you do not have a seller's
commission. And third, you do not have to paint and do the
other things. That is a lot of money that potentially could be
used.
Next, incent the building of more starter homes with a
small lot bounty program. This would boost homeownership.
States could be writing a bounty that says if you create more
small lots than you have been in the past, however you do it,
we will give you $25,000 for each one of those. You would have
additional targeted bounties for lots near factories that are
being built, lots on land sold by the Federal Government, and
lots in areas where there are teardowns.
I would also suggest that you could restrict HUD money that
goes to places that have rent control. There is no point in
providing Federal money to places that are actively working to
restrict new development.
And lastly, you could tax profits or newly built for-sale
developments as a long-term capital gain, not income. Right
now, developers, if they develop a property and rent it as part
of their business, they do not pay--and then they sell it
eventually two, three, five years down the road, they get
capital gains treatment. If they sell it after billing it to a
homeowner, they have to pay ordinary income because they do not
get capital gains treatment. That type of distortion in the
income tax code should be eliminated.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Hughes for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MR. BUDDY HUGHES
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Mr. Hughes. Chairman Burlison, Ranking Member Frost, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the National Association of Home
Builders.
The United States is facing a housing affordability crisis.
Seventy-seven percent of U.S. households cannot afford just the
median price of a new single-family home. It is crucial to put
regulatory costs in focus because homebuyers and renters are
sensitive to price. For every $1,000 increase to the cost of a
single-family home, an additional 116,000 households are priced
out of the market. Likewise, for every $1,000 increase to the
cost of a new rental, an additional 20,000 renters are priced
out of that apartment market.
Regulations are a significant part of construction
expenses. Twenty-four percent of the cost of a new single-
family home can be attributed to regulations imposed at the
local, state, and Federal levels. For multifamily projects, 41
percent of the cost are due to regulations. And while we
understand and value regulations that promote health, safety,
and welfare, there are many that unnecessarily make housing
more expensive.
In 2024, HUD and USDA released a rule mandating federally
assisted projects use the 2021 energy code, which offers
marginal energy savings to homeowners. This energy code will
add thousands in additional cost, and homeowners will not see a
payback on these sometimes for decades.
Builders in Kansas City, Missouri, did a real-world
analysis that showed a two-story house built to the 2021 energy
code cost the consumer an additional $31,000 compared to the
2012 code. Furthermore, this energy code has minimal energy
savings, resulting in up to a 90-year payback. Thankfully, HUD
Secretary Turner has delayed this rule.
Davis-Bacon requires payment of prevailing wages on
federally assisted projects exceeding $2,000. These are based
on union wages--union wage rates that do not reflect local
market conditions. In regions like South, Midwest, or rural
areas, these wage determinations significantly exceed market
wages.
On top of higher labor costs, builders face extensive
paperwork, weekly payroll certification, and compliance risk.
Even a minor or technical mistake can result in a major
financial penalty. Multifamily builders spend valuable
resources to retain full-time staff just to be able to comply
with these burdensome administrative hurdles.
Obtaining a nationwide permit under the Clean Water Act is
often challenging. What is supposed to be a streamlined,
predictable process can take over a year. Permitting delays
lead to additional interest on loans and fees being paid to
consultants or attorneys to advance a permit application,
resulting in a more expensive home. To address these permitting
challenges, National Housing Bank (NHB) is grateful that the
House passed the PERMIT Act and that the Administration is
working on improving the permitting process.
For multifamily projects with Federal assistance, a key
challenge for our members is the requirement to source
domestically for construction materials. While our members try
to use products made within the United States, it is not always
practical because of price or availability. Single-family
housing has an exemption to this requirement, but multifamily
housing also needs an exemption to help avoid construction
delays and additional cost.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. Regulatory
pressures improve--impose real cost on housing affordability.
We look forward to working with you to alleviate these
headwinds and, above all, to let builders build. Thank you
again.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Onwuka for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICE ONWUKA, DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
INDEPENDENT WOMEN
Ms. Onwuka. There we go. Thank you, Chairman Burlison and
Ranking Member Frost for having me to appear today.
At Independent Women, we have a special focus on women's
career pathways, financial security, and prosperity. So,
today's housing challenges place very great burdens on
Americans, particularly young people and women. It is a key
issue for them. Women often control family house finances and
make household decisions throughout their lives, and they are
not a monolith. Single women are the second largest share of
homebuyers behind married couples. Women take out larger
mortgages than men and make smaller down payments than men.
Because women live longer than men, many older women tend to--
stand to inherit all the assets and assume full control of the
family household decisions, whether to downgrade, for example,
or to age in place.
Meanwhile, younger generations like millennials like
myself, we feel the American dream is out of--of homeownership
is out of reach. This is the largest generation, and yet they
comprise only 29 percent of homebuyers. So, we need policies
that meet the needs of young people and women who desire to be
homebuyers, those who desire to age in their homes with
dignity, and those who just want quality, affordable places to
rent for themselves and their families.
Now, housing unaffordability is simply driven by housing
shortage, and the solution to this problem is to expand the
U.S. housing stock of existing and new homes for purchase
through deregulation and tax policy. Government policies have
led to scarce and costly housing options. Restrictive zoning
laws, as we have heard, opaque permitting processes, and the
rise of environmental laws and other regulations are posing
major impediments.
The Federal Government can eliminate these costly Federal
regulations, including green energy mandates imposed over the
past few years, and really incentivizing states and local
governments to enact the needed reforms that are under their
jurisdictions. So, we are pleased that Congress is considering
rolling back Biden-era energy efficiency mandates on appliances
that have added tens of thousands of dollars to the price of
new homes. We are also encouraged by the permitting reform that
is underway right now, bipartisan efforts.
And in addition, we are encouraged by the packages of
reforms aimed at increasing housing supply, affordability, and
access, such as the Road to Housing Act or the similar bill
Revitalizing Americans' Housing Act. They contain policy
recommendations that will spur the creation of various housing,
multi-generational housing types, such as Accessory Dwelling
Units, and I will spend a moment on that.
ADUs are a hidden gem. They are secondary living spaces on
the same property as primary residences. Think of your
converted garages, English basements, in-law suites. They are a
win-win-win for homeowners, renters, and communities. They
generate secondary income for homeowners and can boost a home's
value by up to 35 percent. They expand rental supply in
desirable neighborhoods, driving down costs for people in
cities like Washington, D.C. I lived in one myself. They
encourage intergenerational living, which is important for
health, socialization, and caregiving for seniors.
State and local governments have--some of them have
implemented regulatory reforms to great success. Congress has a
role here and can pass permitting reform that clears the way
for ADUs and incentivizes construction projects, maybe through
Federal grants for housing programs at local levels that
incentivize permitting reforms at local level and programs.
Take, for example, in Boston, Massachusetts, which offers a no-
interest, long-term loan to older and low-income owner-
occupants to build out smaller independent units in their
homes. I know this well. I have a very close family member who
is a retiree who renovated her basement and created a three-
bedroom apartment generating $2,900 a month in the very same
home she owns.
On taxes, I want to thank Congress for passing the working
families tax cuts, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill,
saving American families from massive tax increases and
increasing take-home pay. But more can be done. And so, we have
heard already from Mr. Pinto talking about homes being the
largest asset and a great source of wealth. Well, home values
mean that you can face a very large tax bill. And so, Congress
has an opportunity here to exclude more income from taxation
and potentially doubling the exclusion amounts from $250,000 to
$500,000 and, of course, indexing that for inflation. We have
seen home prices rise over 200 percent since the last time
those exclusion levels were set. This is going to break the
lock-in effect for many seniors and home sellers, and this
would expand the housing supply immediately in helping first-
time homebuyers with their--homebuyers get into their homes.
Congress should also consider helping homebuyers with down
payments, and there are some bills around that. I am excited,
though, that Congress is taking this on right now. Deregulation
will spur home construction, and adoption of smart tax policies
will also make it easier for women, for millennials, and for
all people who are looking to buy a home to save for that down
payment. Thank you.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
And I recognize Ms. Nagy for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MS. CAROLINE NAGY (MINORITY WITNESS)
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING POLICY
AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM
Ms. Nagy. Chairman Burlison, Ranking Member Frost, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony on behalf of Americans for Financial Reform.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to
transform the financial system so it serves as an equitable and
sustainable economy to help all families and communities
flourish.
Our nation is confronting an unprecedented housing
affordability crisis. Nearly half of renters are paying higher
rents than they can afford, and home ownership has become out
of reach for most people. So, let us look at the long-term
causes of this crisis.
First, we need more housing. The single-family home
construction industry never fully recovered from the 2008
foreclosure crisis. And today, we are building 20 percent fewer
homes than we did in the 1990s, despite population growth. We
also have a severe national shortage of housing that people
with the lowest incomes can afford. And we are losing what
remains of our affordable housing stock faster than we can
replace it due to rising rents and stagnant incomes.
Investors are outcompeting homebuyers. Corporate investors
have been buying up homes, apartment buildings, and
manufactured housing communities. This surge of corporate
ownership has reduced the availability of homes, increased
housing prices and rents, imposed new junk fees, and raised
eviction rates.
Meanwhile, insurance and utility costs are growing.
Homeowners' rates have increased an average of 70 percent since
2021, while property insurers' underwriting loss ratios remain
low and profits are at record highs. High utility costs are
another driver of housing unaffordability.
And we also have unsustainable land use practices. We need
new construction of multifamily and affordable housing, yet it
is illegal to build anything other than single-family housing
on 75 percent of residential land in the United States.
In addition to these trends, several policy decisions made
over the last year have harmed renters and would-be homebuyers.
First, tariffs and the immigration crackdown are making home
building and home repair more expensive. New permits and
building starts are at or near five-year lows, and workforce
shortages became the leading cause of construction delays in
2025.
The Federal Government has also been letting predatory
actors like RealPage off the hook. Despite being accused of
facilitating price fixing among the country's largest corporate
landlords, last year, the Department of Justice proposed a weak
settlement without fines or an admission of guilt.
The current Administration has also stopped homebuyer
protections that make mortgage lending fairer and safer,
including by trying to shut down the Consumer Protection--
Financial Protection Bureau and undermining fair housing
enforcement at HUD. This tells Wall Street and other financial
firms that they can violate antitrust, consumer protection, and
fair lending laws with impunity, making homebuying more risky,
less fair, and more expensive.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) dramatically
weakened Fannie and Freddie's affordable housing goals. The
new, significantly lower goals will likely cutoff over 175,000
families from affordable mortgages. In early 2025, the FHFA
also ended its support of special purpose credit programs, and
the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), different agencies,
took away the First Look program for most post-foreclosure
sales, where previously owner-occupiers, people who are buying
the homes to live in, and nonprofits had an exclusive 30-day
period to purchase a home before opening the sale to investors.
That is mostly no longer the case now.
Moving to recommendations, first, the damaging policies
described above at FHFA, CFPB, HUD, and other agencies need to
be reversed. To crack down on corporate landlords, Congress
should pass the Homes Over Private Equity or HOPE for Home
Ownership Act, which would improve--impose tax penalties on
large investors who buy single-family homes and require them to
sell them off over a ten-year period. Similarly, the End Junk
Fees for Renters Act would protect renters by requiring
landlords to disclose the total amount due each month before
the lease is signed. Preferential treatment for hedge funds and
private equity firms in the tax code should also be eliminated
by closing the carried interest loophole.
Congress should also support first-time homebuyers, such as
through the Down Payment Toward Equity Act, which would expand
down payment assistance for first-time or first-generation
homebuyers. For rental housing, Congress can and should do more
to support struggling tenants, including passing the Ending
Homelessness Act of 2025, which would ensure that every
household who qualifies for the Housing Choice Voucher program
receives it.
Finally, regarding home insurance, the Federal Government
should be using all tools available to monitor the
deterioration of insurance markets, protect consumers, promote
climate resilience, and develop a long-term strategy for
ensuring our housing stock in areas where private markets do
not seem willing or capable to cover it.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for
these--on these urgent issues. I look forward to answering any
questions Members may have about my testimony today. Thanks
again.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Ms. Nagy.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. I will
begin with Mr. Hughes.
In the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, it allocated $1
billion to incentivize state and local governments to move to
the 2021 International Conservation Code by tying the adoption
of that to Federal grant money. You mentioned the impact
specifically in Kansas City, in my home state. When they
adopted this code in 2023, new home buildings ground to a halt,
and the number of builders active in the city declined by 78
percent. In one instance, a family that already had an energy-
efficient home had to spend over $10,000 just to come in
compliance with the new code, which only saved them $2 a year
in their energy bill. Can you elaborate on what is exactly the
difference between what was required in the 2021 building codes
and conservation codes versus the 2001? Is that right?
Mr. Hughes. 2012.
Mr. Burlison. 2012?
Mr. Hughes. Their comparison was 2012.
Mr. Hughes. Okay. There are different states all over the
country that choose different models. In North Carolina, we
still use a combination of the 2012 and 2008. It is just
whatever seems to fit at your state or locality. The main
difference in those codes--and you might have seen my chart in
the comparison--or in the written testimony, most of it is
insulation, wall insulation, slab insulation, extra R value,
extra sealing around the bands, and in most cases, it was just
adding unnecessary layers of insulation or of protection
because the truth of the matter is for the last 25 years, the
homes that we have built have performed very well on energy.
Most builders choose a program of one kind or another to
make sure that their homes are built to a certain standard. It
is hard to guarantee what energy bills are going to be, but it
is good to give homebuyers an assurance that the builder has
done all he can to keep energy costs down. So, to continue to
put layers and layers of more insulation or more sealing
products just adds to the cost, as you can see, with very
minimal return.
Mr. Burlison. Right. In a way, you are increasing that
initial, you know, jumping-off point for someone because, for
example, the first home that my wife and I bought, it was not
the most energy efficient home. It was not our, you know, dream
home, but it was a starter home, at least something that we
could step into and afford at that time.
As I found dollars available, I was able to use those
dollars to make that home more energy efficient, but all of
that was done in a calculation, does this have a return on
investment for me? Am I actually going to save dollars? But to
force it on people is, I think, what we are talking about
today. Some of these regulations are raising the bar so high so
that the initial entry point is really difficult for anyone to
make, especially starting off.
Mr. Hughes. Sure. Absolutely. It has to be choice. Nobody
appreciates innovative products any better than I do. I use it
and encourage it, but I know it has to be choice.
Mr. Burlison. Ms. Onwuka, last September, the U.S. Census
Bureau reported that nearly half of the U.S. renters were cost
burdened, meaning that they spend more than 30 percent of their
income on housing costs. As Americans often rent for years
before buying their first home, how has this become such a
heavy burden on Americans?
And I say that--you know, we have seen the increase in
housing costs, but we are not talking about the increase in
healthcare costs, which is also crowding out dollars from
people's pocketbooks. Healthcare inflation and healthcare
premiums are more than double what they were even adjusted for
inflation today, so people have fewer dollars to spend.
Ms. Onwuka. Well, absolutely. I mean, when you look at--a
record 22.4 million renter households paid more than 30 percent
of their income on rent, that is a lot. Half of those spent
more than 50 percent of their income on rent. So, when you have
half of your income going to rent, then you have to pay for
utilities and you have to pay for transportation and feed
yourself, that leaves less for you to be able to put money away
for savings and for that down payment.
And as I talked about when it comes to women, women
struggle. Women take out bigger loans because they have less to
put down from a down payment standpoint. And so, as you free up
more income for an individual through rising wages and tax
cuts, leave more of their hard-earned dollars--and thank you
for ending taxes on tips and taxes on overtime. That allows
people to put money aside for things like a down payment.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time has expired. I now yield
to Ranking Member Frost for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, there is so much to unpack here in 5 minutes on
how to solve the housing crisis, but there is two things I want
to focus on. You know, number one, I think the conversation
around our process and how we can make the process faster, how
it can work better so we can build more homes is really
important. But there is always an obsession, especially with a
lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to focus
in on important standards that we believe are important for
working families to have and Americans to have.
And we are talking about energy efficiency. As energy costs
go up across this country, more and more working families want
to make sure when they are putting such a big investment into a
home where they are going to build equity, that things are done
to make sure that it is more energy efficient. And you really
think insulation is the reason why we are in a housing crisis
right now? I mean, we know that this helps lower energy costs,
and it is also about quality of living. I am a drummer. I do
not know if you want to live next to me and have, you know, not
some great insulation in your home.
But I bring this up because there is the process, and then
there is important environmental and important standards that
we have to keep. And I am very sensitive to this in the State
of Florida. And this is a pretty bipartisan thing all across
Florida as well. We want to protect our wildlife. We want to
protect our biodiversity. We have things called hurricanes that
happen every year. In fact, every year for the past several
years, we have had a hundred-year hurricane, a hurricane that
is only supposed to happen one every hundred years. It is
standards that help ensure that homes are built in the right
places, that there is flooding mitigation in place, that
building standards, building rules, all this stuff is very
important to us because when people put that investment into a
home, we want to make sure they are safe in it, especially when
the worst things happen in a state like the State of Florida.
But when we look at the process, there are things we should
look at. We have talked about it. So, restrictive zoning rules,
getting rid of parking minimums, exclusionary zoning, height
limits, duplicative review process. All this is really
important. Let us look at it. But the obsession with, like,
honing in on some very important things that maybe might save a
little bit at the bottom line, but when the hurricane comes,
damn, you wish that standard was put into place I think is not
the best foot to start this conversation when we are talking
about bringing down housing costs.
Too many houses are simply unaffordable for working people.
And even people with enough money for a down payment are often
outbid by investors with cash offers. Large corporations and
institutional investors, including private equity firms, have
purchased hundreds of thousands of homes and turned them into
lucrative businesses, squeezing the dimes out of residences.
This trend accelerated during the 2008 financial crisis.
Millions of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Investor
bulk purchased foreclosed homes and converted them into rental
housing. Large investors also rose after the start of COVID-19
when homeowners died or foreclosed on their home or sold during
the dip in insurance rates.
So, whether it is 2008 or COVID-19 or the next event, we
can count on people in Wall Street to exploit Americans'
housing affordability crisis. Without government solutions,
this is going to continue. This is especially relevant now as
foreclosures are up by 20 percent.
So, Ms., is it Nagy? Ms. Nagy, what challenges do
prospective homebuyers face when they have to compete with
large corporations?
Ms. Nagy. Well, first of all, they have a lot less money.
Wages are--have not been keeping up with the rise in the cost
of housing, and that is a serious problem, the solution to
which is not all of our housing stock.
Additionally, if you require financing, especially if you
are a first-time homebuyer, you are going to be dealing with an
FHA mortgage, inspection requirements, maybe your down payment
assistance program. That is a lot more to deal with from the
seller's perspective than somebody who is here today offering
you all cash because they are able to obtain financing much
quicker using different channels than regular consumers are
able to.
And I think the other thing to keep in mind with investor
single-family home purchases is that they are buying at the
bottom of the market. Specifically, they target markets with
lower housing values and higher shares of Black and non-college
residents, according to the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. And
these are also starter homes. So, you actually have too much
competition at the bottom of the market for folks who are just
desperately--you know, people my age who are just trying to get
into homeownership.
Mr. Frost. Yes. Yes. I also want to ask about manufactured
housing. What are the unique challenges that manufactured
homeowners face when Wall Street is buying up all the land
their homes sit on?
Ms. Nagy. Right, so manufactured housing residents own
their homes but not the land it is on. And in some ways, they
have the worst of both worlds when it comes to protections. One
investor said it was--buying up manufactured homes was like,
you know, investing in a Denny's, except for with manufactured
homes, the people are chained to the table. And that kind of
illustrates the extreme difficulties manufactured homeowners
have when they are faced with rising lot rents or a lack of
maintenance. They are kind of stuck there, and it puts them in
a terrible situation.
Mr. Frost. Yes, thank you. I am actually working on
legislation to help level the playing field for the seven
percent of Americans who are in manufactured home communities.
In places like Florida, there is actually laws that if you have
a much older unit that you live in, you cannot move it legally,
and so you are really just at the mercy of whoever owns the
land. It is important.
So, thank you, I yield back. I am thankful for your time,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For a matter of background, in 2007, my wife and I were
renting, had been renting for years. In 2010, we bought a used
single-wide trailer for $15,000. We paid that off like paying
for a car in four years. Then we bought a tract of land that we
were so excited to be able to buy for not a lot of money, a 65-
year-old 1,000-square-foot wood frame home on 1.2 acres of
land. That is where we lived for many years. That is where we
lived when I ran for Congress.
In 2019, we bought the modest home where we live right now,
and our son lives in a little country home, a little 1,000-
square-foot home. We always looked at what we could afford. To
us and to most American families, the question of affordable
homes is quite personal. It has nothing to do with the Federal
Government. What we want is the Federal Government the hell out
of our way so we can live our lives and fill our homes,
whatever it may be, whether it is a humble, used, single-wide
trailer or a 1,000-square-foot wood frame, 65-year-old home on
an acre of land in the country. Our home was filled with love
and laughter, and that is what made it our home.
The affordability of the home was not a question of what
could the Federal Government do for us. It was our journey. We
embraced it. And this is the way most Americans feel. They look
at not what can the Federal Government do but what should the
Federal Government do, including embracing the separation of
powers between Article I legislative authority of Congress and
Article II authority, executive authority of the White House.
So, yes, we support endeavors by this Administration to
decrease regulatory burden, to get the Federal Government the
hell out of the way of the home building market and the home
selling market, home buying market. And we support a
legislative endeavor that would remove barriers to home
ownership for American citizens. And the American citizens are
quite capable of determining what is affordable and what is not
affordable.
Thank you very much. That is a personal decision for every
American family, and we do our best. So, this idea that it is
up to Congress to decide where and how, for how much an
American citizen can buy and live in a home, that is backward
and contrary to our deepest core principles. What we want is
the freedom to live our lives. We want the government out of
the way.
Now, home prices go up and down. They trend up and down.
Interest rates trend up and down, but the insurance always
trends up. Mr. Hughes, property insurance, the availability of
legitimate property insurance providers, the lack thereof,
especially in regions of our country that are prone to natural
disaster like Florida for the gentleman and Louisiana for me.
When we shop for property insurance, it is like one insurer
instead of--I believe if it was market-driven--and this may be
where the Federal Government can have an effective intersection
with the free market. How affordable would homes be if property
insurance was more readily available in your industry, Mr.
Hughes?
Mr. Hughes. Property insurance and cost of has gotten way
out of hand, and we have builders that are building--our
members building in areas for a specific market or a price
point----
Mr. Higgins. There you go. So, like in our case, our
mortgage is less than our insurance on our home.
Mr. Hughes. Exactly. They do not think about that.
Mr. Higgins. It is insane. So, we have a bill--and I would
ask--Mr. Frost and I have never really worked on a bill, but
Florida, Louisiana, we have a lot in common here. We have a
bill, 1070, that essentially uses the Federal tax code, good
sir, to create a market that will be attractive for insurance
providers to sell policies and do business post-impact of
natural disaster in regions of our country that suffer from
those natural disasters. I ask you to just take a look at it,
and perhaps we can work together to actually do something for
the American people to reduce the cost of property insurance on
homes, and therefore, greatly enhance the affordability of
homes across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing. I thank our
witnesses today, and I yield.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I now recognize the honorable lady
from Arizona, Representative Ansari for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hosting
this hearing on one of the biggest economic challenges facing
Americans.
Like the rest of the country, I represent a district where
so many of the Arizonans who keep our community running,
teachers, firefighters, service workers, and nurses are being
priced out of their communities, the same communities that they
helped build. Rents have exploded in the last couple of years
in Phoenix. What used to be, you know, considered one of the
most affordable cities in the country has become pretty
unaffordable, and homeownership has become an impossible dream
for most would-be first-time homebuyers.
I know many of you mentioned the housing supply crisis as
the, you know, biggest reason why we are in this situation. I
could not agree more. In Phoenix, we are about 200,000 units
short of where we need to be. When I was on the Phoenix City
Council, we did everything possible to make bureaucratic zoning
laws easier. I saw that firsthand. I led the charge to legalize
ADUs in Phoenix to reduce arbitrary parking minimums. And just
last week, we hosted a shadow hearing on housing affordability
in my role as the Chair of the congressional Progressive
Caucus' Lowering Cost Task Force and heard from policy experts
on a whole menu of ways to tackle the affordable housing
crisis.
We know that we have many options to lower housing costs,
but some of the actions by the Trump Administration have only
raised construction costs, exacerbated labor shortages, and
gutted HUD and programs that keep working Americans afloat. In
a report from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, they
concluded that if the Trump Administration meets its goal of
deporting four million people by the end of 2028, 1.4 million
immigrants who work in the construction industry would be lost.
There would also be a net loss of 861,000 jobs among U.S.-born
workers because the sudden removal of part of the workforce
could force contractors to rapidly scale back or shut down
entirely.
Mr. Hughes, I will start with you. Yes or no, would you
agree that there is already a labor shortage in the
construction industry?
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Ms. Ansari. And would losing somewhere between one to two
million workers make the problem worse?
Mr. Hughes. Sure.
Ms. Ansari. And how does the already existing labor
shortage impact our ability to meet the housing demand?
Mr. Hughes. Well, it affects it tremendously. I mean, if
you simply do not have the trades to do the job, it makes
everything more expensive, almost nonexistent. I mean, we have
some subdivisions sitting with slabs exposed, you know, without
enough labor. So, we are hopeful and confident that we can
figure out how to deal with this immigration issue because we
simply have to have them. We--our estimate is that 30 percent
of our workforce are foreign-born.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you. And I appreciate your answer. And I
know your organization's research showed that there was a $10.8
billion economic impact caused by longer construction times due
to the labor shortage. And immigrants, the very people that
this Administration is attacking and causing to be fearful of
going to the work site make up about 25 percent of the
construction workforce and 1/3 of the craftsmen.
I want to move to the topic of tariffs as well. The Center
for Economic Progress estimates that tariff-induced building
costs will lead to 450,000 fewer homes being built over the
next five years. The National Association of Home Builders have
been outspoken against President Trump's tariff policies. Mr.
Hughes, also for you, what measures are home builders having to
take to respond to rising material costs associated with
tariffs?
Mr. Hughes. I have not--I have not experienced it directly.
And for the most part, there is just about always another
option. I have had it affect me directly in one way with a
scaffolding product that I have bought in Canada over the years
and that is a tariff now, and so it has just forced me to find
another source in the States.
How I build with a lot of concrete, so the concrete
industry or Portland cement has affected a lot of the--Portland
cement, the gray powder that concrete is made of is imported,
so that is somewhat of effect, and gypsum. But for the most
part, I have not seen it, I have not had to deal with it, so
that is about as far as I can speak to it.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you so much.
And finally, President Trump and DOGE have also gutted HUD
and gone after programs like housing choice vouchers. Trump has
also proposed to cutoff rental assistance after two years, even
if participants still cannot afford rent on their own.
Ms. Nagy, the final question is for you. How does
insufficient funding for these programs impact the families who
rely on rental assistance to keep a roof over their heads? And
what effect would a time limit on voucher availability have on
these low-income families?
Ms. Nagy. So, you know, regarding section 8 vouchers and
funding for them, right now, if you live in New York City, you
cannot even get on the waitlist. The waitlist itself for
section 8 is closed. Time limits are based under the assumption
that the folks who are working--and most folks who can work are
working. It is just they are working minimum wage jobs that do
not pay them enough, do not have regular hours. Many of these
folks also have kids, other, you know, responsibilities that
they need a bit more regular scheduling.
So, unfortunately, it actually--in places that have tried
these time limits, they have actually found them to be
counterproductive. And I really do not recommend anyplace
experiment with them--experiment with this unless they are
prepared to take on the much more resource-intensive burden of
housing now homeless folks who used to have some stable,
affordable housing.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Yes, Ranking Member Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a document
from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy that
makes it clear that energy efficiency codes are not driving up
costs anywhere near what industry is claiming.
Mr. Burlison. Without objection.
Mr. Frost. And then I also have another one from the Urban
Institute entitled ``Mass Deportations Would Worsen Our Housing
Crisis.''
Mr. Burlison. Without objection.
Mr. Frost. Thank you.
Mr. Burlison. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record the following materials: The prepared testimony of
Steven Camarota, the Director of Research at the Center for
Immigration Studies, presented to the Oversight and
Accountability Committee titled ``The Border Crisis: The Cost
of Chaos.'' Also, an article authored by E.J. Antoni, Ph.D.,
entitled ``Why an Open Border Means More Expensive Housing.''
And a report from the Federation of American Immigration Reform
published in 2025 entitled ``Housing Affordability is an
Immigration Issue.'' Without objection, so ordered.
Yes, Representative Ansari.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you. I also ask unanimous consent for an
article from the New York Times, ``Builders Find Hardship in
Trump's Tariffs and Deportations.'' And from NBC News, ``From
Lumber to Lighting: How Trump's Tariffs Drive Up Home
Construction Costs.'' Thank you.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Without objection.
With that, I recognize Mr. Perry. Thank you for waiting for
that, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you to
our panelists. Thanks for being here.
Ms. Onwuka, did I say that correctly?
Ms. Onwuka. Yes, you did.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, ma'am. My mom was a single lady, two
young boys, bought a house outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
no electricity, no running water. We had a thing called an
outhouse. Do you know what that is? Had one of them pumps, you
know, you go like this, take your bath out in a galvanized
steel tub. Baths happen fast because the water coming out of
the ground is cold. But, she was able to do it, right? My mom
is a tough lady. She is like a hero to me. She is a tough lady,
and she found a way to do it. And, you know, I think her kids
have probably done okay for themselves. I know she is proud of
them.
And over the course of my lifetime watching--and she still
lives in that house, by the way. But I have watched things
change dramatically. And I myself was a mechanical contractor
for a while, and I was a state legislator for a while, and I
will tell you a couple stories, and then you tell me what you
think. Over the course of my time, I spent some time on my
local planning commission. I was the Chairman of the board, and
I watched the International Construction Code go from something
about this big, I do not know, 800, 1,000 pages now, 800, 1,000
pages. And do you know how things are added to the
International Construction Code?
Ms. Onwuka. I can imagine, lots of lobbying.
Mr. Perry. It is a lot of--there is lobbying and special
interest. And if you are the right group or organization, you
can come in for the vote and vote for things to be put into the
code, which then your local jurisdiction subscribes to and
mandates.
Now, I had the privilege of serving in the state
legislature. I know a lot of friends that are firefighters, and
we had an opportunity to mandate sprinklers in all residential
homes. All new residential homes get sprinklers. I just
happened to be building my home at the time. And when I say
building my home, the home that I currently live in, I do not
mean hiring some contractor down the street to do the framing
and then another contractor to pull the wire and then another
contractor to run the pecs or the copper. I mean, I was
building my home, and so I was watching every penny. I was
watching every penny. We had a little child, and we were
expecting another one. You know, money is tight, right?
And the experts told me that my new fire suppression system
was going to cost me 250 bucks. That is what the people in
Harrisburg testified to. But that was not what I was going to
be charged if I had to put it in now. I fought that and we
fought that and we won because, look, if you want a fire system
in your home, God bless you, then put one in. If you can afford
it, put one in. But my mom did not start out with a fire
suppression system in her home. We had a potbelly stove that my
brother and I cut wood in and stuck it in that potbelly stove
to keep warm.
Ladies and gentlemen, over the course of my lifetime, the
cost of housing has exploded because government makes us do all
this stuff. And it is all well-meaning. My mom did not want to
live in that house with no electricity, no water, no bathroom,
but that is the opportunity we had, and we did better. And that
house now has all that stuff in it.
The cost of all this has gone up because the government
thinks at the local, state, and Federal level that we know what
people need. And unfortunately, the answer from my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle is always some kind of give
people money to afford all that stuff, take money from you and
give it to them so they can afford all that stuff, or to ban
stuff. And I just do not see it changing.
Now I just want to ask a couple of you guys, have you ever
heard of fractional ownership? It is where you rent the house
if you are a renter, but you cannot save enough money, right,
because you are renting. We have all been there. Mr. Higgins
has been there, right? But if you contribute a little bit to
the ownership of that home, you build equity by renting, and it
is great for the owner of the home, the landlord because you
are going to take care of that of which you are investing in.
And I would just encourage, instead of banning things and
telling people you cannot do this because the Federal
Government says so or the other idea is take from this person
and give to that person, let us try and think of--look,
everything is political here. Everything is political here. But
we are trying to solve this because our people need places to
live, and they need to be able to afford them. And everybody
wants to live in Larry Fink's house, but most people cannot
afford to live in Larry Fink's house. By the way, the largest
private equity investor in residential housing, a supporter of
the party on the other side of the aisle. He does not seem to
have a problem with this.
Instead of banning investors from being involved in the
thing that has created the most wealth and dragged more people
out of poverty in the world, which is real estate ownership,
let us find a way to make--look, if you want to be an investor,
do not get the tax credits. We are not talking about banning
anything. Do not get the tax credits that Mr. Frost or Mr.
Higgins or myself or any of you would get on the first time you
are trying to buy a house.
My goodness, there are answers out here. We do not need the
heavy hand of government forcing any more of this stuff down
our throat.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your diligence, and I yield
back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Min for 5 minutes.
Mr. Min. Thank you, Chair Burlison.
Mr. Burlison. How about 6 minutes?
Mr. Min. Whatever. I would probably be done in five. Thank
you, Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member Frost, for holding
this very important hearing.
I represent Orange County, California, where we have seen
home prices just skyrocket over the last decade. And of course,
in the last year, they have soared even more, despite the fact
that we have a stagnant economy, due to a lot of the policies
of this year.
But I will just say off the bat, this is a really, really
important issue. When we talk about affordability, for many
Americans, housing costs are at the front and center of that,
whether it is rent, whether it is mortgage payments. And, of
course, the statistics have been cited quite a lot. The average
age of a first-time homebuyer now has shot up to something like
38 or 41, depending on who you talk to. That means that
families are not getting formed. People are still saving for
their nest eggs. And as we know, home ownership is the top
avenue to building wealth in this country.
Now, you talk to economists--and I know Alan Greenspan had
a famous moment where he said that, you know, we should have,
you know, variable-rate mortgages. You know, people should not
necessarily buy homes. They should invest in 401(k)s instead.
But all of the empirical data is very clear. While people
should do certain things, they do not necessarily do that.
Investing and owning a home is the top pathway to building
wealth in this country, to paying for things like college and
retirement. And so, home ownership is really, really important,
and it is happening later and later in life. There is a lot of
factors. They are a complicated issue. Five minutes is not
enough time to get into this.
But certainly, this is an income issue as well. As we have
pushed more money to the very wealthiest, and we have hollowed
out the middle class, that pathway to home ownership has become
harder and harder.
There is also obviously big permitting issues. Whether it
is National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in my state in California, we
know permitting has become a real drag on building homes in
this country. We need to address that in a responsible way. I
think we need to address environmental issues, but we need to
do that in a way that also allows the cheap building of homes
in this country in places like Orange County and elsewhere.
But I also want to add that the policies of this past year
and a half have been so counterproductive to the goals of
lowering prices, particularly around home ownership and
rentals. President Trump and I both attended the Wharton School
of Business. Clearly, only one of us went to class because the
policies that he has enacted over the last year are so
counterproductive to lowering costs. Tariffs, for example.
Tariffs--and I will ask you, Ms. Nagy, imposing tariffs,
particularly with uncertainty around them, whether they will go
up to 25 percent, ten percent, 15 percent, what is the impact
of that going to be on building costs in this country?
Ms. Nagy. It makes them go higher.
Mr. Min. Higher. And in fact, it slows building down to a
crawl. And when I talked to some general contractors right
after Trump announced his tariffs last year, they all told me
the same thing. Maybe you disagree with this, Mr. Hughes, maybe
you agree, but what I was told is that because you are
building--particularly for bigger developments, you are
building out six months, a year, a year and a half out, you
have a bunch of subcontractors who are relying on cost-plus
formulas where they get reimbursed for their costs plus a
little bit extra, that no one was buying at that point in time
because they did not know what the tariffs would be. They did
not know what the costs of their projects would be, you know,
how much steel would cost, how much concrete and lumber and
things like that. Have you seen any kind of impact from these
tariffs on the pace of development, Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Hughes. Very little, personally. And what I was
mentioning to the Subcommittee earlier, where it affected me
was a product--a scaffolding product that is made in Canada.
And what the tariffs have done, it forced me to buy something
made in the United States.
Mr. Min. Got it. Well, I will just note that, as far as
Canadian lumber, which is about 85 percent of all U.S. softwood
lumber imports, your website has a 14.5 percent tariff listed
on that. And of course, that has gone up and down, and that
uncertainty has also created problems with building in this
country.
I also want to talk about the just complete craziness of
what Trump is doing with Federal Reserve independence. And
every responsible economist knows that Federal Reserve
independence is a key pillar of U.S. monetary policy, of
financial stability, of our ability to control interest rates,
but also to be the reserve currency, which has huge impacts for
our economy, for our financial system. And so when you are
threatening the Federal Reserve's independence, when you are
weaponizing the Department of Justice to go after a Federal
Reserve Governor based on complete nonsensical claims that they
did something wrong when they clearly did not, as the courts
are now finding--Lisa Cook here is obviously what I am
referring to--you end up rattling the markets.
And he is doing this all. He is threatening the Federal
Reserve's independence so that he can have like a one-percent
decline in interest rates, a one-percent cut in interest rates.
I will just note that his reckless and poorly thought-out
threats to invade Greenland--Ms. Nagy, you are nodding here--
what impact did that have on our mortgage rates here in the
United States?
Ms. Nagy. Well, the cost of borrowing money, the U.S. bonds
went up, or the returns specifically. So, actually, we erased
all of the progress we had made on lowering interest rates as a
result of the $200--$200 million--billion mortgage-backed
securities purchase. So, these international trends actually do
really impact the bond market and slightly indirectly interest
rates.
Mr. Min. And I will just note that a number of different
economics groups out there, economists, found that the threats
to Greenland actually caused interest rates to go up 140 basis
points, 1.4 percent on mortgages in America. And so again, this
chaos is not good for our markets.
I will just close also by saying one other factor we need
to think seriously about in places like California and
elsewhere is the impact of climate change. The forest fires
that we are seeing on a regular basis every year in California,
southern California are making insurance a huge cost. It is
driving up--it is making housing even more unaffordable. As we
start to see sea level rise, coastal erosion, a lot of other
impacts to our local environments created by climate change,
that is also driving up the cost of home ownership.
But I am over my time. I will yield back to the Ranking
Member here. Thank you all for appearing today.
Mr. Burlison. All right. Thank you.
In closing, I want to thank all of our witnesses for taking
time today and for your testimony. And I will now yield to
Ranking Member Frost for his closing statement.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and
sharing your perspectives.
We are all in agreement about the reality and the magnitude
of the housing crisis in this country and what we need to do.
This has been a crisis in the making from the Great Recession,
then exacerbated by the COVID pandemic. And it is going to take
a lot of solutions to make sure that we handle this problem.
I did want a point of clarification, though, because I
think it is very important. We are trying to figure out what
the bipartisan support looks like in Congress to push forth the
democratic proposal that is been endorsed by President Trump on
banning institutional investors from buying single-family
homes. My colleague, Representative Perry, I do not know if I
can yield to you really quick. It sounded like you said you are
against that proposal.
Mr. Perry. I do not love the Federal Government banning me
from being free. If we want to change tax policy to encourage
individual home ownership and then not encourage institutional
investing or at least make them pay extra for institutional
investing, that is something I think----
Mr. Frost. Okay.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. We ought to have a conversation
about. But outright banning----
Mr. Frost. All right.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. To me seems----
Mr. Frost. Yes. Okay. Yes. No, thank you so much,
Representative. I appreciate it. I just wanted to clarify your
opposition to President Trump's call for Congress to ban
institutional investors from buying single-family homes.
If we are really serious about making rent and home
ownership affordable for everyday Americans, Congress has to
take concrete action and legislate. We have to tackle the
private equity interests that snatch up homes before
individuals and working families have a chance to make an
offer. We have got to protect renters from landlords that want
to exploit them and collude to keep rent prices high and charge
exorbitant junk fees, which, by the way, most mom-and-pop
landlords do not do.
We must exercise our constitutional authority to check
President Trump's reckless tariffs that harm American home
builders. We must work to protect workers who are critical to
the construction industry and increase our supply of affordable
housing. We must get rid of things like exclusionary zoning,
parking minimums, and duplicative reviews.
And as we take these steps, we also have to ensure that
Federal agencies are supporting and protecting vulnerable
Americans, protecting critical housing assistance programs at
the Department of Housing and Urban Development like section 8
Housing Choice Voucher program. We have to prevent the
President from eliminating the Consumer Financial Protections
Bureau and allow it to resume its work to enforce fair lending.
And we have to push back on the Administration's attempt to
politicize the Federal Housing Finance Agency to go after
President Trump's political enemies and return to its work on
sustainable, affordable home ownership.
This is something, like I said at the beginning I have been
personally impacted by, being able to afford housing at
multiple points in my life, and that resulted in me being
homeless during my congressional campaign.
Every time I talk to my constituents in Florida, housing is
the top issue that they bring up. It should not be a partisan
issue. I look forward to hopefully working with my Republican
colleagues on this.
Look, a lot of us, everyone has great solutions in terms of
making sure that we can fix this problem. When I sit down with
people in my district from home builders to the realtors to
advocacy organizations, tenant organizations, we all agree we
need more housing. There is going to be some places where we
disagree on the solution, but I truly believe that a little bit
from everybody's solution here, I think, is what is going to be
necessary to fix this housing problem. We need to build more
housing. We need to build as much housing as we can, quite
frankly, affordable housing, period, and we have to ensure that
we protect consumers, we protect the little guy, we protect
working families. I think that is our job.
I think the Federal Government does have a role in fixing
the housing crisis. In fact, look, in history, for too long,
the Federal Government has washed its hands clean of
incentivizing good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Most of
the exclusionary zoning and things we are talking about are
done at the local level, which I think is having a horrible
impact on building more housing. So, I think we do have a role
here. I do not think we can say we have nothing to do here. We
have a job. We got to do it, and let us do it together.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I now recognize myself for a
closing statement.
Today's testimony, thank you again. I think coming away
from this, there are a few things that become clear, and that
is the housing affordability crisis that Americans are facing
today is real, but it is not a product of normal market
dynamics. It is the result of decades of poor policy decisions
that have made it, you know, artificially more expensive and
burdensome to build a home than it should be, and we need to
reverse that trend.
Experts are predicting that we have ten million housing
unit shortage within the next ten years, so we need to remove
the barriers to the construction of new homes. This is common
sense. This requires reforming regulatory and permitting
regimes, which at all levels of government have made home
construction and ownership more difficult.
The Democrat-led state and local governments in particular
have placed artificial barriers on new housing construction.
Democrat cities, for example, rather than making it easier to
expand supply, are implementing radical rent control policies,
which actually destroy the supply of housing and raise the cost
of rent. And it should be no surprise that in just the cities
of Houston and Dallas alone, they approved more housing permits
than the entire State of California in 2024.
So, runaway inflation is caused because of President Biden
and the congressional spending that occurred, that binge
spending that made everyday living more expensive and raised
mortgage rates to record levels. It locked millions of
Americans into homes, constricting our supply. On top of that,
Biden's open border policies allowed millions of illegal
immigrants to compete against American citizens for the limited
supply of homes in our Nation. As we Republicans have
repeatedly highlighted, this sudden and preventable mass
migration drew heavily on government benefits as well,
including housing assistance that was meant for American
citizens.
What is the result? Americans today wait on average until
the age of 40 to buy a home for the first time. And Americans
are waiting longer to form families and less financially secure
and less confident in the American dream. This is why we, along
with President Trump, are taking decisive action to make the
American dream affordable again, with bold proposals that place
home ownership for hardworking Americans at the heart of
Federal policy.
For example, President Trump and this Congress of
Republicans passed H.R. 1 to cut taxes at record levels, put
money back in the pockets of everyday Americans, and make it
easier for Americans to save for a home. And Republicans will
continue to undo the disastrous policies of the Biden era that
hampered our housing supply and drove up the costs of things.
We must do this. We cannot leave this on the table, and we
have a short time to correct this course. And the American
people deserve a home run on this topic and others and not a
base hit.
Without objection, all Members have five legislative days
within which to submit materials and additional written
questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]