Housing Issues in the 117th Congress
July 23, 2021
The 117th Congress has been considering a variety of housing-related issues, with housing
challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic remaining a primary concern. As the Congress
Katie Jones, Coordinator
began, the COVID-19 pandemic was ongoing, as were concerns about some households’ ability
Analyst in Housing Policy
to maintain rent or mortgage payments due to the effects of the pandemic. In March 2021,

Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2), a wide-ranging pandemic relief and
response law that included funding for several new and existing housing programs to help

address the effects of the pandemic.
Through hearings and legislative proposals, the 117th Congress has also indicated interest in a variety of other housing-related
issues, including proposals to address housing affordability concerns, to include housing funding in proposed infrastructure
packages, and to address racial disparities in housing outcomes. Other potential issues of interest include certain housing-
related rulemakings issued under the Trump Administration that the Biden Administration has revisited, including
rulemakings by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and fair housing regulations promulgated by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. In addition, the status of two government-sponsored enterprises important to the housing
finance system, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been of ongoing interest for over a decade.
Housing market conditions provide context for the 117th Congress’s deliberations, although conditions vary locally and
national indicators may not reflect the conditions in a specific local community. During the pandemic, house prices have
risen, but mortgage interest rates have fallen, helping to spur homebuyer demand. Housing supply, which was low before the
pandemic began, has become even more constrained, contributing to price increases. Concerns about high housing costs,
limited supply, and the potential for increased evictions and foreclosures as pandemic-related protections expire have been
prominent housing market considerations during the 117th Congress, though uncertainty remains about market trends going
forward.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 35 Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Introduction
While housing in the United States is primarily a private market enterprise, regulated at the state
and local levels, federal policymakers play an important role in regulating housing finance,
providing affordable housing resources to state and local entities, and enforcing fair housing laws,
among other functions. Congress establishes laws governing U.S. housing policy, funds housing
policies and programs via the annual appropriations process and the federal tax code, and
oversees policy and program implementation by various federal agencies. The House Financial
Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, in particular, play prominent roles in
many of these functions as committees of jurisdiction. Federal agencies involved in housing
policy and programs include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and others.
The housing policy priorities of the first session of the 117th Congress have been heavily
influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and both its public health and economic ramifications.
Significant new housing-related investments were included in the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L.
117-2), a pandemic relief and recovery law enacted early in the 117th Congress.
In addition to those related to the COVID-19 pandemic, several other housing policy
considerations are of interest to the 117th Congress. Housing affordability remains a prominent
concern, and a variety of policy proposals have been put forward to address the affordability of
both rental housing and homeownership. Furthermore, proposals for new housing funding have
been included in broader infrastructure proposals, and Congress has signaled an interest in
addressing racial disparities in housing. The Biden Administration has revisited certain housing-
related policies that were implemented in recent years; for example, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) delayed the effective date of a mortgage-related rulemaking, while
HUD has taken steps to rescind certain Trump Administration fair housing rules and reinstate
elements of Obama Administration-era rules. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-
sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that back a large part of the mortgage market, remain in
conservatorship. Congress could take legislative action to address the conservatorship, and even
in the absence of legislation it could consider administrative steps taken by the GSEs’ regulator
and conservator, FHFA, that affect their activities.
This report provides a high-level overview of housing issues of interest to the 117th Congress and,
where applicable, refers to more in-depth CRS reports on the issues discussed.
Housing and Mortgage Market Conditions
This section provides background on housing and mortgage market conditions thus far during the
117th Congress to provide context for the housing policy issues discussed in the remainder of the
report.1 It includes selected indicators focused on single-family housing markets, single-family
housing finance,2 and rental markets. The ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic create

1 For more information on these and other housing and mortgage market conditions, see HUD’s quarterly Housing
Market Conditions reports, available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/quarterly_commentary.html, and its
monthly Housing Market Indicators reports, available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/hmi-update.html. Both
of these report series collect data on various housing market indicators that are published by other entities.
2 Single-family homes are often defined as homes with one-to-four housing units, particularly in the context of housing
finance, meaning that a duplex or triplex would be considered single-family housing. In some contexts, however,
single-family homes may be defined as only one-unit homes. Single-family homes can be primary residences owned by
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7 Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

uncertainty, however, and current trends in market conditions may not continue. In addition, some
housing data collection has been impacted by the pandemic and may not be directly comparable
to previous data, contributing to uncertainty about market trends.
This discussion is of market conditions at the national level. Local housing market conditions can
vary significantly, and national housing market trends may not reflect the conditions in a specific
area. Nevertheless, national housing market indicators can provide an overal sense of general
trends in housing.
Single-Family House Prices
As shown in Figure 1, nominal house prices3 have increased national y on a year-over-year basis
in each quarter since the beginning of 2012, with year-over-year increases exceeding 5% for
much of that period and exceeding 6% at times. These increases followed almost five years of
house price declines in the years during and surrounding the financial crisis of 2007-2009 and
associated housing market turmoil.
The pace of house price increases remained fairly steady for several years before noticeably
accelerating during 2020. In the fourth quarter of 2020, nominal house prices increased nearly
11% from the same quarter a year earlier, fueled by strong housing demand (in part due to low
mortgage interest rates, among other factors) and a limited supply of homes for sale.4 This rapid
growth has continued into 2021, with nominal house prices increasing by over 12% in the first
quarter.5

owner-occupants, or they may be second homes or investment properties. Rental housing units may be in single-family
or multifamily properties.
3 T he Federal Housing Finance Agency weights, indexes, and seasonally adjusts nominal price change data. Data
measure the average price changes in repeat sales or refinances on the same properties using repeat mortgage
transactions that were purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since January 1975. For more
information, see Federal Housing Finance Agency, House Price Index, at https://www.fhfa.gov/DataT ools/Downloads/
Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx.
4 Federal Housing Finance Agency, “ U.S. House Prices Rise 10.8 Percent over the Last Year; Up 3.8 Percent in the
Fourth Quarter,” news release, February 23, 2021, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/US-House-Prices-
Rise-10pt8-Percent-over-the-Last-Year-Up-3pt8-Percent -in-4Q.aspx.
5 Federal Housing Finance Agency, “U.S. House Prices Rise 12.6 Percent over the Last Year; Up 3.5% in the First
Quarter,” news release, May 25, 2021, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/US-House-Prices-Rise-12pt6-
Percent -over-the-Last-Year-Up-3pt5-Percent-in-the-First-Quarter.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Figure 1. Year-over-Year House Price Changes (Nominal)
Q1 1995–Q1 2021

Source: Figure created by CRS using data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index
(Seasonal y Adjusted Purchase-Only Index), available at https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-
Price-Index-Datasets.aspx#qpo.
Notes: Figure shows the percentage change in nominal house prices compared to the same quarter in the
previous year. Gray bars indicate recessions.
Figure 2 shows the trend in real median prices on both new and existing homes since 1995.
Median prices on both new and existing homes have general y trended upward over the past two
decades, with a decline in prices during and after the 2007-2009 financial crisis. While the
median price of new homes has been consistently above that of existing homes, the median price
of existing homes has grown more than new homes—the median real price of existing homes
increased about 76% from 1995 to 2020, while the median real price of new homes increased by
about 47% over the same period.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Figure 2. Median Real House Prices
1995–2020

Source: CRS calculations based data from HUD’s U.S. Housing Market Conditions reports, available
at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/home.html, which use data from the National Association of Realtors
for existing home prices, the U.S. Census Bureau for new home prices, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the
consumer price index.
Notes: Gray bars indicate recessions.
Home Mortgage Interest Rates
Most homebuyers take out a mortgage to purchase a home, especial y when purchasing a primary
residence.6 Therefore, owner-occupied housing markets and the mortgage market are closely
linked, although they are not the same. The ability of prospective homebuyers to obtain
mortgages as wel as the costs of those mortgages impact housing demand and affordability.
Mortgage interest rates have been low by historical standards for several years, and fel further
after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic due in part to the federal monetary policy response to
it. Lower interest rates increase mortgage affordability and make it easier for some households to
purchase homes or refinance their existing mortgages.
As shown in Figure 3, mortgage interest rates have been consistently below 5% since May 2010.
The rates decreased further throughout 2020, averaging less than 3% for several months from
mid-2020 into 2021. The average mortgage interest rate in May 2021 was 2.96%, compared to
3.23% in May 2020 and 4.07% in May 2019.

6 According to the National Association of Realtors’ 2020 Profile of Homebuyers and Sellers, about 87% of
homebuyers who purchased a primary residence between July 2019 and June 2020 financed the purchase. See National
Association of Realtors, “Pandemic Caused Buyers to Seek Multi-Generational Homes, Sellers to Sell Faster,” press
release, November 11, 2020, https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/pandemic-caused-buyers-to-seek-multi-generational-
homes-sellers-to-sell-faster.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Figure 3. Mortgage Interest Rates
January 1995–May 2021

Source: Figure created by CRS based on data from Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey, 30-
Year Fixed Rate Historic Tables, available at http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/.
Notes: Freddie Mac surveys lenders on the interest rates they are charging for certain types of mortgage
products. The actual interest rate paid by any given borrower wil depend on a number of factors. Gray bars
indicate recessions.
Home Sales
Home sales include sales of both existing and newly built homes. Existing home sales general y
number in the mil ions each year, while new home sales are usual y in the hundreds of
thousands. As shown in Figure 4, home sales fel for several years after 2005 and remained low
through the aftermath of the housing and financial crisis of 2007-2009 before general y rising
again after 2014.
Homebuyer demand has remained strong even throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the
combined number of homes sold was about 6.5 mil ion, the highest figure since 2006 and an
increase from 6.0 mil ion in 2019. Existing home sales in 2020 numbered 5.6 mil ion, while new
home sales numbered 815,000; both of these levels were the highest since 2006 as wel . Although
home sales have general y been increasing in recent years, the supply of homes on the market has
general y not been keeping pace with demand, contributing to house price increases.

Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Figure 4. New and Existing Home Sales
Annual, 1995–2020

Source: Figure created by CRS using data from HUD’s U.S. Housing Market Conditions reports, available
at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/home.html, which use data from the National Association of Realtors
for existing home sales and the U.S. Census Bureau for new home sales.
Inventory of Homes for Sale
Home sales depend in part on the number of homes available for sale. The supply of houses on
the market has been low for several years and fel even further in 2020. As shown in Figure 5, the
annual housing inventory—that is, the number of homes on the market at a given point in time (in
this case, at the end of the year)—was under 1.4 mil ion in 2020.7 The low housing inventory has
been driven by several factors, including ongoing shortfal s in housing construction to meet
demand8 and homeowners’ decisions about putting their homes on the market, which may have
been influenced by the pandemic. Several factors, in turn, have been contributing to construction
shortfal s; these include, among other things, the availability and costs of land, labor, and
materials (including lumber).9

7 For existing homes, the inventory includes active listings and pending sales; see National Association of Realtors,
“Inventory and Months’ Supply,” blog post, https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/inventory-and-months-
supply. For new homes, inventory includes homes that are “ being built to be sold and a permit to build has been issued
(in permit -issuing places) or work has begun on the footings or foundation (in nonpermit areas) and a sales contract has
not been signed nor a deposit accepted.” See U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Sales, “ Definitions – Survey of
Construction,” https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/definitions/index.html#n.
8 See, for example, Freddie Mac, Housing Supply: A Growing Deficit, Research Note, May 7, 2021,
http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20210507_housing_supply.page.
9 See, for example, Jim Parrott and Mark Zandi, Overcoming the Nation’s Daunting Housing Supply Shortage, March
2021, https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/overcoming-the-nations-housing-supply-shortage.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 12

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Figure 5. Annual Housing Inventory
1995–2020

Source: Figure created by CRS using data from HUD’s U.S. Housing Market Conditions reports, available
at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/home.html, which use data from the National Association of Realtors
for existing home inventories and the U.S. Census Bureau for new home inventories.
Notes: Annual inventory represents homes for sale as of the end of the year.
Single-Family Housing Construction
A variety of statistics measure the amount of new housing construction underway, including
housing starts, housing permits, and housing completions.
Housing starts are the number of new housing units on which construction is started in a given
period and are typical y reported monthly as a seasonally adjusted annual rate. This means that
the number of housing starts reported for a given month (1) has been adjusted to account for
seasonal factors and (2) has been multiplied by 12 to reflect what the annual number of housing
starts would be if the current month’s pace continued for an entire year.10
Figure 6 shows the seasonal y adjusted annual rate of starts on one-unit homes from January
1995 through May 2021.11 Housing starts for single-family homes fel during the housing and
financial crisis that began around 2007, reflecting decreased home purchase demand. Housing
starts have general y been increasing since about 2012, and while they initial y showed a steep
drop early in the pandemic, they have since rebounded and reached their highest levels since

10 T he Census Bureau defines the seasonally adjusted annual rate as “the seasonally adjusted monthly value multiplied
by 12” and notes that it “is neither a forecast nor a projection; rather it is a description of the rate of building permits,
housing starts, housing completions, or new home sales in the particular month for which they are calculated.” See U.S.
Census Bureau, “New Residential Construction,” at https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/definitions/index.html#s.
11 T he number of housing starts is consistently higher than the number of new home sales. T his is primarily because
housing starts include homes that are not intended to be put on the for -sale market, such as homes built by the owner of
the land or homes built for rental. See U.S. Census Bureau, “ Comparing New Home Sales and New Residential
Construction,” https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/salesvsstarts.html.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

about 2007. Nevertheless, new housing construction has remained below the levels necessary to
meet demand, especial y for smal er, more affordable starter homes.12
Figure 6. Single-Family Housing Starts
(Seasonal y adjusted annual rate)

Source: Figure created by CRS using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Construction
Historical Data, http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/. Data are through May 2021.
Notes: Figure reflects starts in one-unit structures only, some of which may be built for rent rather than sale.
The seasonal y adjusted annual rate is the number of housing starts that would be expected if the number of
homes started in that month (on a seasonal y adjusted basis) were extrapolated over an entire year. Gray bars
indicate recessions.
Single-Family Mortgage Market Composition
After a mortgage is originated, it might be held in a financial institution’s asset portfolio, or it
might be securitized through one of several channels.13 Two government-sponsored enterprises,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, issue mortgage-backed securities and guarantee investors’
payments on those securities. Mortgages that are insured or guaranteed by a federal agency, such
as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), are
eligible to be included in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, part of HUD.
Private companies can also issue mortgage-backed securities without a government or GSE
guarantee, known as private label securities. The shares of mortgages that are provided through
each of these channels can vary based on market conditions, policy decisions, and other factors,
and may be relevant to policymakers because of the implications for mortgage access and
affordability as wel as the federal government’s exposure to risk.
As shown in Figure 7, nearly 60% of mortgage originations (by dollar volume) in 2020 were
securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. About 22% were held in financial institutions’

12 See, for example, Jim Parrott and Mark Zandi, Overcoming the Nation’s Daunting Housing Supply Shortage, March
2021, https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/overcoming-the-nations-housing-supply-shortage.pdf;
and Freddie Mac, Housing Supply: A Growing Deficit, Research Note, May 7, 2021, http://www.freddiemac.com/
research/insight/20210507_housing_supply.page.
13 For more information on different types of mortgages and mortgage securitization channels, see CRS Report
R42995, An Overview of the Housing Finance System in the United States.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

portfolios, and about 18% were securitized FHA or VA loans. Under 1% of originations were
included in private-label securities.
Figure 7. Share of Mortgage Originations by Type
2020

Source: Figure created by CRS based on Inside Mortgage Finance data as reported in Urban Institute, Housing
Finance Policy Center, Housing Finance at a Glance: A Monthly Chartbook, March 2021, p. 8.
Notes: Figure shows share of first-lien mortgage originations by dol ar volume.
The nearly 60% of loans securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in 2020 was an increase from
43% in 2019 and the highest level since 2013, likely reflecting impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic and its associated economic effects. The FHA/VA share was similar to 2019 (18%
compared to 19%), and the bank portfolio share was lower (22% compared to 36%).14 The overal
volume of mortgage originations also increased significantly in 2020, rising to $4.0 tril ion from
about $2.4 tril ion in 2019.15 Much of this increase was driven by high refinancing volumes due
to low interest rates.
Homeownership and Renter Rates
After the housing and mortgage market turmoil that began around 2007, there was a substantial
decrease in the homeownership rate and a corresponding increase in the share of renter
households. As shown in Figure 8, the share of renters increased from about 31% in 2005 and
2006 to a high of about 36.6% in 2016, before beginning to decrease and reaching 35.4% in 2019.
The share of renters appeared to fal further, to 33.4%, in 2020, although data collection for the

14 For a graph showing each of these shares of mortgage originations for each year going back to 2001, see Urban
Institute, Housing Finance Policy Center, Housing Finance at a Glance: A Monthly Chartbook, March 2021, p. 8.
Other monthly issues of Housing Finance at a Glance can be found on the Urban Institute’s website at
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/housing-finance-policy-center/projects/housing-finance-glance-monthly-
chartbooks.
15 See Freddie Mac’s Quarterly Forecasts, Quarterly Forecast: As the Economy Recovers, the Housing Market Remains
Healthy While Mortgage Rates Move Up, April 2021, http://www.freddiemac.com/fmac-resources/research/pdf/
2021Q2-Forecast -03.pdf and Quarterly Forecast: Housing Market Continues to Rebound as Mortgage Rates Hover at
Record Lows, October 2020, http://www.freddiemac.com/fmac-resources/research/pdf/202010-Forecast -03.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 15

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Census Bureau survey that reports these statistics was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.16
Therefore, 2020 figures discussed in this subsection may not be entirely comparable with prior
years.
The homeownership rate correspondingly fel from a high of 69.0% in the mid-2000s to 63.4% in
2016, before rising to 64.6% in 2019 and 66.6% in 2020 (though 2020 data was subject to
changes in data collection procedures).
Figure 8. Renter and Homeownership Rates
1995–2020

Source: Figure created by CRS based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Housing Vacancy
and Homeownership Survey, Annual Statistics, Table 14, “Homeownership Rates by Area.”
Notes: Because data col ection procedures were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020, the Census
Bureau urges caution in comparing 2020 estimates to previous estimates. Gray bars indicate recessions.
The overal number of occupied housing units also increased over this period, from nearly 110
mil ion in 2006 to 123 mil ion in 2019 and 126 mil ion in 2020.17 The number of renter-occupied
units increased from about 34 mil ion in 2006 to about 44 mil ion in 2019 before fal ing to 42
mil ion in 2020. The number of owner-occupied housing units fel from about 75 mil ion in 2006
to about 74 mil ion in 2014; it has since increased to about 79 mil ion units in 2019 and nearly 84
mil ion in 2020. Again, however, 2020 data may not be directly comparable to prior years.
Composition of the Rental Housing Stock
Rental units can be in a variety of property types, including single-family homes, smal
multifamily buildings, and large multifamily buildings. As shown in Figure 9, in 2019 about half
of rental units were in single-family properties (defined as properties with 1-4 dwel ing units:
about 33% of rental units were in 1-unit properties, and about 17% were in 2-4 unit properties).

16 See U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) Changes,
“Impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on Housing Vacancies and Homeownership data collection for
2020,” https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/annual20/ann20src.pdf.
17 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership, Historical T ables, T able 7, “Annual Estimates of the
Housing Inventory: 1965 to Present,” http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html.
Congressional Research Service

10

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

About 31% of rental units were in buildings with 5-49 units, and 14% were in buildings with 50
or more units. Another 4% were manufactured housing.18
Figure 9. Rental Stock by Number of Units in Property
2019

Source: Figure created by CRS using American Community Survey one-year estimates.
Ownership of rental properties varies widely, from individual investors who own one or a few
units to large corporate institutions. Individual investors are more likely to own single-family
homes or smal er buildings than large multifamily buildings. According to HUD’s 2018 Rental
Housing Finance Survey, about 42% of rental properties have a mortgage.19 However, the
likelihood of a property being mortgaged increases with property size,20 suggesting that a larger
share of rental units are in properties with a mortgage. In general, single-family rental properties
are financed with single-family mortgages while financing for multifamily properties is obtained
through the multifamily and commercial mortgage market.21
This variation in rental property composition and ownership may be relevant to Congress as it
considers various policy questions, including how to respond to chal enges faced by renters and
landlords due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some property owners may have more difficulty than
others withstanding extended periods of reduced rental income without fal ing behind on bil s or
maintenance or having to sel a property, and considerations related to the ownership and
financing of rental properties could inform efforts to provide assistance to renters or landlords.

18 Data are from American Community Survey 2019 one-year estimates, T able B25032. A small number of occupied
rental units are reported as being in other types of structures, including boats and recreational vehicles.
19 Department of Housing and Urban Development, “HUD and Census Bureau Release Findings of Rental Housing
Finance Survey,” press release, June 3, 2020, https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/
HUD_No_20_071.
20 Urban Institute Housing Finance Policy Center, “Small Multifamily Units,” slide deck, May 2020, p. 5,
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2020/05/15/small_multifamily_units_0.pdf.
21 For more information on multifamily mortgages, see CRS Report R46480, Multifamily Housing Finance and
Selected Policy Issues.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Renter Vacancy Rates
As shown in Figure 10, the rental vacancy rate has general y been declining for several years and
was 6.4% at the end of 2019. Lower vacancy rates may put upward pressure on rents as renter
households compete for fewer available units.
The rental vacancy rate at the end of 2020 was essential y unchanged from the end of 2019.22
However, like certain other measures discussed earlier, the Census Bureau reports that the data
collection procedures for its survey were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020 and
urges caution in comparing 2020 quarterly estimates to previous quarters. It suggests that changes
in vacancy rates during that period should be interpreted as reflecting both pandemic effects and
changes to data collection procedures.23 The rental vacancy rate in the first quarter of 2021 was
6.8%. The pandemic continued to affect data collection in the first quarter of 2021, though to a
lesser extent than in 2020.24
Figure 10. Rental Vacancy Rates
Q1 1995–Q1 2021

Source: Figure created by CRS based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and
Homeownership Historical Tables, Table 1, “Quarterly Rental Vacancy Rates: 1956 to
Present,” http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html.
Notes: Because data col ection procedures were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020, the Census
Bureau urges caution in comparing 2020 quarterly estimates to previous quarterly estimates. Gray bars indicate
recessions.

22 T he rental vacancy rate at the end of 2020 was 6.5%, not statistically different from the fourth quarter 2019 rate of
6.4%. See U.S. Census Bureau, “Quarterly Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, Fourth Quarter 2020,” press
release, February 2, 2021, https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf.
23 See U.S. Census Bureau, “Frequently asked questions: T he impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the
Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS),” p. 4, https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/
qtr420/impact_coronavirus_20q4.pdf.
24 U.S. Census Bureau, “Quarterly Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, First Quarter 2021,” press release, April
27, 2021, https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Renter Cost Burdens
A variety of factors impact rental housing affordability, including the supply of rental housing
units available, the characteristics of those units (e.g., age, amenities), the demand for available
units, and renter incomes. Under the most commonly used definition, housing is considered to be
affordable if a household is paying no more than 30% of its income in housing costs. Households
that pay more than 30% are considered to be cost-burdened, and those that pay more than 50%
are considered to be severely cost-burdened.
Cost burdens can affect both renter and owner households as wel as households of al income
levels, but they are highest among lower-income renter households. As shown in Figure 11, about
46% of al renter households were cost-burdened in 2019 (about 22% had moderate cost burdens
and 24% had severe cost burdens). Cost burdens, and especial y severe cost burdens, were most
prevalent among renters with the lowest incomes. About 80% of renter households with annual
incomes below $30,000 were cost-burdened, with most being severely cost-burdened. Nearly
60% of renter households with incomes of at least $30,000 but less than $45,000 were cost-
burdened, with most being moderately cost-burdened.
Figure 11. Renter Cost Burdens
2019

Source: Figure created by CRS using data from Joint Center for Housing Studies, State of the Nation’s Housing
2020, Appendix Tables, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2020, showing Joint Center for
Housing Studies tabulations of American Community Survey data.
Housing and the Broader Economy
The housing market plays an important role in the larger economy, as it accounts for a significant
portion of economic activity. Housing contributes to GDP in two direct ways: residential fixed
investment and spending on housing services. Residential fixed investment includes al spending
on the construction of new single- and multi-family structures, residential remodeling, and
brokers’ fees. Housing services includes al spending on renters’ utilities and rent and
homeowners’ imputed rent25 and utility payments.

25 Imputed rent is the estimate of the rent a homeowner would be willing to pay to live in his own house.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

As shown in Figure 12, residential investment was $885.2 bil ion in 2020 and accounted for
roughly 4% of GDP. Housing services were $2.8 tril ion and accounted for roughly 13% of GDP.
Despite the pandemic, spending on both residential investment and housing services were up in
2020, accounting for 17.5% of GDP as compared to 16.3% in 2019. Spending in the housing
market has fluctuated over time, and over the last few decades there has not been a consistent,
long-term trend in housing spending as a share of GDP. Housing’s share of economic output rose
in the lead up to the housing market crash and financial crisis of 2007-2009, and fel rapidly
during it. Since the crisis, housing’s share of output has risen more gradual y and is now in line
with pre-crisis numbers.
Figure 12. Total Housing Spending as a Share of GDP
1995-2020

Source: CRS calculations based on Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, Table
1.1.5 and Table 2.3.5.
As evidenced by the housing crash and the role it played in the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the
housing market can play a critical role in the health of the broader economy. However,
fluctuations in the housing market do not necessarily line up perfectly w ith the business cycle.
Spending on housing can increase even as economic output fal s, as witnessed during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
That said, house prices are typical y thought to impact residential investment and therefore affect
economic growth, al else being equal. Rising home prices likely encourage additional
construction spending (in order to take advantage of the higher sale prices on the completed new
homes), leading to more robust economic growth. A decline in housing prices is likely to depress
construction spending, leading to more anemic economic growth. Fluctuations in house prices can
also have effects on the economy through so-cal ed wealth effects (i.e., as the value of
homeowners’ assets, and therefore net wealth, increases, they tend to spend more). In addition,
increases in housing value encourage homeowners to spend more for a variety of other reasons,
including higher confidence in the economy, increased equity for homeowners to borrow against,
and higher rental income. A decrease in prices results in the opposite. In the United States,
consumer spending makes up roughly 70% of the economy; therefore, changes in housing wealth
can result in significant changes in economic growth.
Congressional Research Service

14

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

For more information on housing’s contribution to the overal economy, see CRS In Focus
IF11327, Introduction to U.S. Economy: Housing Market.
Housing Issues in the 117th Congress
While the housing issues of interest to policymakers wil continue to evolve as the 117th Congress
progresses, this section provides a high-level overview of some broad issues that have been, or
are likely to be, of interest.
Housing Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic
The ongoing pandemic and its economic impacts have raised concerns about the ability of
individuals and families to afford their housing, as wel as spil over effects for housing markets.
Both the 116th and 117th Congresses, and the Trump and Biden Administrations, have taken
actions related to housing policy and the pandemic (discussed below). However, concerns persist
that when temporary protections expire—including eviction moratoriums, foreclosure
moratoriums, and mortgage forbearance periods—more households may be in danger of losing
their homes through eviction or foreclosure.
116th Congress
During the 116th Congress, there were a number of federal actions related to housing and the
pandemic, including the following:
 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-
136), enacted in March 2020, contained certain housing-related pandemic
response provisions. These included additional funding for certain federal
housing programs, temporary mortgage forbearance for federal y backed
mortgages, and temporary eviction and foreclosure moratoriums that applied to
certain federal y related rental units and mortgages, respectively.
 Federal agencies took a variety of administrative actions in response to the
pandemic. Among other things, federal agencies and Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac administratively extended their foreclosure moratoriums after the CARES
Act foreclosure moratorium expired, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) implemented a separate and broader eviction moratorium after
the CARES Act eviction moratorium expired.
 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), enacted in December
2020, contained additional housing-related pandemic response provisions, most
notably an extension of the CDC’s eviction moratorium and funding for rental
assistance.
For a full discussion of actions that Congress and federal agencies took to address the housing
impacts of the pandemic during the 116th Congress and links to related CRS reports, see the “The
COVID-19 Pandemic and Housing” section in CRS Report R45710, Housing Issues in the 116th
Congress.
117th Congress
In March 2021, the 117th Congress passed and President Biden signed another pandemic relief
law, the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2). The enacted law included funding for several
new and existing housing programs, including additional funding for rental assistance, a new
Congressional Research Service

15

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Homeowner Assistance Fund, homelessness assistance, housing counseling, Native American
housing programs, and fair housing activities.
Furthermore, during the 117th Congress, federal agencies have taken several steps to extend
existing pandemic-related housing protections, implement previously enacted assistance
measures, or propose additional protections:
 The CDC announced three additional extensions of its federal eviction
moratorium. As of the cover date of this report, the most recent extension goes
through July 31, 2021, and the CDC stated that it expects this extension to be the
last.26 In addition, Treasury began al ocating emergency rental assistance funding
that was first provided in P.L. 116-260 to states and localities.
 Federal agencies and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extended existing foreclosure
moratoriums that apply to the mortgages they back. As of the cover date of this
report, the most recent extension goes through July 31, 2021, with the
Administration indicating that this wil be the federal agencies’ last extension.27
In addition, al of these entities announced that mortgage forbearance periods for
mortgages they back could be extended beyond the period al owed under the
CARES Act under certain circumstances.
 In June 2021, concurrent with the announcement of the extension of the CDC
eviction moratorium and foreclosure moratoriums for federal y backed mortgages
through July 31, 2021, the White House announced a series of actions designed
to help state and local governments promote housing stability and prevent
evictions and foreclosures. These included revisions to Treasury guidance on the
use of Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) funds designed to speed the delivery
of assistance; a letter to state and local courts from the Deputy Attorney General
encouraging the adoption of eviction diversion efforts and guidance on how ERA
funds can be used to support such efforts; convening of a White House summit to
plan for eviction prevention; extensions of deadlines related to mortgage
forbearance approval; and implementation of “a whole-of-government effort to
raise awareness about emergency rental assistance.”28
 In June 2021, the CFPB promulgated a final rule temporarily amending certain
mortgage servicing procedures under Regulation X29 in response to the pandemic
and the concern that a large number of borrowers may exit forbearance around
the same time without receiving a meaningful opportunity to be reviewed for loss
mitigation.30 (Loss mitigation refers to options to avoid foreclosure, such as

26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “T emporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further
Spread of COVID-19,” June 24, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-declaration.html.
27 T he White House, “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initiatives to Promote Housing Stability By
Supporting Vulnerable T enants and Preventing Foreclosures,” June 24, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2021/06/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initiatives-to-promote-housing-
stability-by-supporting-vulnerable-tenants-and-preventing-foreclosures/. T he fact sheet states that the foreclosure
moratorium is being extended “by a final month, until July 31st.”
28 Ibid.
29 Regulation X implements certain mortgage servicing standards under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA).
30 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Protections for Borrowers Affected by the COVID-19 Emergency Under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Regulation X,” 86 Federal Register 34848-34903, June 30, 2021,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/30/2021-13964/protections-for-borrowers-affected-by-the-covid-
19-emergency-under-the-real-estate-settlement. For an executive summary of the rule, see
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_covid-mortgage-servicing-rule_executive-summary_2021-06.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

16

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

repayments plans, loan modifications, or other foreclosure alternatives.) Under
the final rule, servicers may offer certain types of loan modifications to
borrowers with pandemic-related hardships even if they have not received a
completed loss mitigation application from the borrower. In addition, the rule
requires servicers to ensure that at least one of several procedural safeguards
(described in the final rule) have been met before initiating foreclosure on
mortgages that are at least 120 days past due. The final rule becomes effective on
August 31, 2021.
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Insight IN11641, Housing Funding in the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021
 CRS Insight IN11673, The CDC’s Federal Eviction Moratorium
 CRS Report R46688, Emergency Rental Assistance through the Coronavirus
Relief Fund
 CRS Report R46830, The Homeowner Assistance Fund in the American Rescue
Plan Act: In Brief
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is a perennial policy issue for Congress. While affordability chal enges can
affect both owners and renters at varying levels of income, lower-income renter households are
the most likely to face severe housing cost burdens, placing them at greatest risk for housing
insecurity. Estimates vary, but they general y show that current federal housing assistance
programs reach roughly one in four eligible households. In light of persistent concerns that many
express about housing affordability, the 117th Congress may consider various affordable housing
policy options.
Proposals to address housing affordability have taken many forms.31 One approach is to provide
additional funding for new or existing programs that support the development of affordable
housing in an attempt to increase the supply of such housing. Another is to pursue demand-side
interventions that help individuals with their housing costs, such as by expanding rental assistance
through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program or creating new tax credits for renters or
homebuyers. A third approach is to take steps to encourage or incentivize state and local
governments to review or address existing policies that may negatively affect housing
development and affordability in their communities, such as land use regulations or other
regulatory requirements that could make building housing more difficult or costly.
Among other proposals related to housing affordability in the 117th Congress, there have been
proposals for significant additional federal funding for constructing new affordable housing,
including several that have been included in various infrastructure proposals (discussed further in
the next section). Additional y, there have been proposals to expand existing rental assistance
programs to serve more families,32 including a draft proposal to create a Housing Choice Voucher
entitlement, which would al ow the program to serve al eligible households. This proposal was

31 For a discussion of certain legislative proposals made in the 116th Congress, see the section on “Proposed New
Investments in Affordable Housing” in CRS Report R45710, Housing Issues in the 116th Congress.
32 For example, see S. 1991, which would authorize 500,000 new vouchers, and President Biden’s FY2022 budget
request, which includes a request for funding for an additional 200,000 new vouchers.
Congressional Research Service

17

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

the subject of a hearing by the House Financial Services Committee,33 and in July 2021 it was
introduced as H.R. 4496 as part of a legislative housing package announced by Financial Services
Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters.34
Housing in Infrastructure Proposals
The topic of infrastructure investments has been prominent during the 117th Congress. The Biden
Administration’s infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan, was released in the spring of
2021 and contains a number of proposals to invest additional resources in housing.35 Those
proposals include the following:
 funding through tax credits, grants, and rental assistance to produce, preserve,
and provide energy efficiency retrofits for affordable rental housing;
 enacting the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act (S. 98/H.R. 2143), which
would provide new tax credits to build and rehabilitate housing for low- and
moderate-income homeowners and buyers in certain disadvantaged areas;
 new grants to incentive land use and zoning policy changes in local communities;
 additional funding to address the backlog of capital needs, address health and
safety concerns, and promote energy efficiency in public housing;
 funding to replace lead pipes and service lines to reduce lead exposure in homes;
and
 additional funding for HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to
promote climate resiliency in low- and moderate-income communities at higher
risk of climate-related disasters.
Both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee have held
hearings related to housing as infrastructure.36 In addition, in April 2021, Chairwoman Waters
released draft legislation, the Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2021, which would authorize

33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Virtual Hearing - Universal Vouchers: Ending
Hom elessness and Expanding Economic Opportunity in Am erica , 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 9, 2020,
https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=407952.
34 House Financial Services Commit t ee, “ Wat ers Announces Int roduct ion of Groundbreaking Legislat ive Housing
Package,” press release, July 15, 2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=
408154.
35 See T he White House, “Fact Sheet: T he American Jobs Plan,” March 31, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/. Some additional detail on these
proposals was released in May 2021; see T he White House, “Fact Sheet: T he American Jobs Plan Will Produce,
Preserve, and Retrofit More T han 2 Million Affordable Housing Units and Create Good-Paying Jobs,” May 26, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/26/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan-will-
produce-preserve-and-retrofit-more-than-2-million-affordable-housing-units-and-create-good-paying-jobs/.
36 T hese have included U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Build Back Better: Investing in
Equitable and Affordable Housing Infrastructure, 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 14, 2021,
https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=407532; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Financial Services, Building Back a Better, More Equitable Housing Infrastructure for Am erica: Oversight of the
Departm ent of Housing and Urban Developm ent, 117th Congress, 1st sess., July 20, 2021,
https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=408108, and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 21st Century Com m unities: Expanding Opportunity Through Infrastructure
Investm ents, 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 20, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/21st -century-communities-
expanding-opportunity-through-infrastructure-investments, at which HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge was one of the
witnesses.
Congressional Research Service

18

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

hundreds of bil ions of dollars in new funding for various affordable housing programs and
activities.37 It was subsequently introduced as H.R. 4497 as part of a legislative housing package
announced by Chairwoman Waters.38
Fair Housing
Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair
housing throughout the United States.”39 Congress passed the act in 1968 after years of private
and government-sanctioned housing discrimination that resulted in racial y segregated
neighborhoods and unequal access to housing.40 As amended, the act prohibits discrimination in
the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
familial status, and disability.41
Historical y, courts and HUD general y recognized that the Fair Housing Act bars both intentional
discrimination as wel as disparate impact (also referred to as discriminatory effects)
discrimination resulting from “facial y neutral decision[s].”42 Intentional discrimination claims
al ege that a defendant made a housing decision based on “a discriminatory intent or motive.”43
Disparate impact claims involve al egations that a housing practice has “a disproportionately
adverse effect on [a protected class] and [is] otherwise unjustified by a legitimate rationale.”44
Various court actions over the past decade have created uncertainty about whether the act
supports disparate impact claims, and if it does, what test courts should apply to evaluate such
claims. In 2015, the Supreme Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable (i.e., viable)
under the Fair Housing Act, and provided guidance to HUD and lower courts regarding how

37 See https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BILLS-117pih-
HousingisInfrastructureActof2021.pdf.
38 House Financial Services Committee, “Waters Announces Introduction of Groundbreaking Legislative Housing
Package,” press release, July 15, 2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=
408154. A version of this legislation was also introduced in the 116 th Congress and was ordered reported by the House
Financial Services Committee (H.R. 5187, 116th Congress). Additionally in the 116th Congress, a set of “ additional
infrastructure investments” was included in T itle V of the FY2021 T ransportation -HUD appropriations legislation that
passed the House (H.R. 7616, as incorporated into H.R. 7617, 116th Congress), although they were not included in the
final FY2021 full-year appropriat ions package.
39 42 U.S.C. §3601. T he Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§3601 -3631) was originally enacted as T itle VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-284).
40 See NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d 149, 154-55 (1st Cir. 1987) (Breyer, J.); Nat’l Fair Housing Alliance v. Carson, 330
F. Supp. 3d 14, 24 (D.D.C. 2015). See also T homas J. Sugrue, ‘From Jim Crow to Fair Housing,’ in The Fight for Fair
Housing: Causes, Consequences, and Future Im plications of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, ed. Gregory D. Squires (New
York: Routledge, an imprint of the T aylor & Francis Group, 2018), pp. 14 -27.
41 P.L. 104-76 (authorizing certain housing for older persons); P.L. 100-430 (adding protections for the disabled and
families with children).
42 Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290 (7th Cir. 1977). T here are two types of
disparate impact discrimination: “ T he first occurs when that decision has a greater adverse impact on one [protected]
group than on another. T he second is the effect which the decision has on the community involved; if it perpetuates
segregation and thereby prevents interracial association it will be considered invidious under the Fair Housing Act
independently of the extent to which it produces a disparate effect on different racial group s.” Ibid.
43 T exas Dept. of Hous. & Cmnty Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2513 (2015) (internal
quotations omitted).
44 Ibid. (internal quotations omitted).
Congressional Research Service

19

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

claims should be assessed.45 During the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations, HUD has
issued differing regulations to implement disparate impact liability that have sparked litigation.46
In addition to prohibiting discrimination, the act imposes a broad mandate on HUD and al other
federal “executive departments and agencies [to] administer their programs and activities relating
to housing and urban development ... in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of [the
Fair Housing Act].”47 This mandate, known as the “affirmatively furthering fair housing” mandate
(AFFH), is not further delineated in the statute, and the Obama, Trump, and Biden
Administrations have implemented the mandate differently.
The evolving administrative and judicial interpretations of the Fair Housing Act’s AFFH
requirements and disparate impact liability, each discussed below, have been of ongoing interest
to Congress. For example, past Congresses have held hearings and considered legislative
provisions related to HUD actions on these and other fair housing issues.48 For more information
on the Fair Housing Act in general, see CRS Report 95-710, The Fair Housing Act (FHA): A
Legal Overview.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
What affirmatively furthering fair housing means is not defined in statute. Various courts, in
decisions regarding HUD’s obligations, have concluded that it means more than refraining from
discrimination.49 A 1987 federal appel ate court decision looked at the legislative history of the
Fair Housing Act, saying that the “law’s supporters saw the ending of discrimination as a means
toward truly opening the nation’s housing stock to persons of every race and creed.” With that
goal in mind, the court stated
This broader goal suggests an intent that HUD do more than simply not discriminate itself;
it reflects the desire to have HUD use its grant programs to assist in ending discrimination
and segregation, to the point where the supply of genuinely open housing increases.50
Over the years, HUD has enforced the AFFH requirement first through guidance and then through
regulations. HUD’s AFFH regulations have changed several times in the last six years over three
presidential administrations. The first AFFH regulations, issued by the Obama Administration in
2015, were replaced by Trump Administration regulations that became effective on September 8,
2020. Most recently, the Biden Administration announced an interim final AFFH rule that
replaces the Trump Administration rule as of July 31, 2021.

45 Ibid.
46 See, for example, Mass. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. United States HUD, 4 96 F. Supp. 3d 600, 603 (D. Mass. 2020); Am. Ins.
Assoc. v. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev., 74 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (vacated and remanded).
47 42 U.S.C. §3608(d).
48 See, for example, from the 116th Congress, House Financial Services Committee, “Waters Statement on HUD’s
Move to Weaken Protections Against Housing Discrimination,” press release, August 22, 2019,
https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404216. Also in the 116th Congress, a
provision in the FY2021 House-passed appropriations bill for multiple agencies, including HUD, would have
prohibited funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce HUD’s 2020 AFFH rule (see Section 506 of the
General Provisions for Additional Infrastructure Investments in H.R. 7617 in the 116th Congress). No such provision
was included in the enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 ( P.L. 116-260).
49 See, for example, NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d at 149, 155 (“Finally, every court that has considered the question has
held or stated that T itle VIII imposes upon HUD an obligation to do more than simply refrain from discriminating (and
from purposefully aiding discrimination by others).”); Nat’l Fair Housing Alliance v. Carson, 330 F.Supp.3d 14,25
(D.D.C. 2015) (same).
50 NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d at 155.
Congressional Research Service

20

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

During the Obama Administration, HUD’s 2015 regulations defined AFFH as “taking meaningful
actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to
opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living
patterns, transforming racial y and ethnical y concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”51
States and localities receiving HUD formula grant funding, as wel as Public Housing Authorities
(PHAs), were required to assess the needs of their communities and ways in which they could
improve access to housing. They were also required to submit a report to HUD, cal ed an
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).
During the Trump Administration, HUD suspended implementation of the 2015 AFFH
regulations in May 2018. On August 7, 2020, HUD issued a new final rule, entitled “Preserving
Community and Neighborhood Choice,” that repealed and replaced the 2015 regulations.52 The
final rule stated that fair housing “means housing that, among other attributes, is affordable, safe,
decent, free of unlawful discrimination, and accessible as required under civil rights laws,” and
that AFFH means “to take any action rational y related to promoting any attribute or attributes of
fair housing.”53 States and localities were to certify that they satisfied the requirement to AFFH as
part of their consolidated plans;54 the rule did not apply to PHAs. The rule took effect on
September 8, 2020.
On January 26, 2021, the Biden Administration issued a Presidential Memorandum to HUD,
directing the agency to “take al steps necessary to examine the effects of the August 7, 2020, rule
entitled ‘Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice’ … including the effect that repealing
the July 16, 2015, rule entitled ‘Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing’ has had on HUD’s
statutory duty to affirmatively further fair housing.”55
On June 10, 2021, HUD published an interim final rule that repeals the Trump Administration
rule and reinstates certain aspects of the 2015 AFFH rule, including the definition of AFFH as
wel as grantee certification requirements.56 It does not require submission of an AFH, and HUD
states that it anticipates releasing a proposed rule, subject to notice and comment procedures, to
address other aspects of the 2015 AFFH rule.57 The interim final rule is effective on July 31,
2021.

51 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” 80 Federal Register
42353, July 16, 2015, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/16/2015-17032/affirmatively-furthering-
fair-housing.
52 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” 85
Federal Register 47899, August 7, 2020, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/07/2020-16320/
preserving-community-and-neighborhood-choice.
53 85 Federal Register 47905.
54 85 Federal Register 47909.
55 T he White House, “Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of
Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies,” January 26, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-redressing-our-nations-and-the-federal-governments-history-of-
discriminatory-housing-practices-and-policies/.
56 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions
and Certifications,” 86 Federal Register 30779, 30783, June 10, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2021/06/10/2021-12114/restoring-affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing-definitions-and-certifications.
57 Ibid. at 30785.
Congressional Research Service

21

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R44557, The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and
Activities
Disparate Impact Discrimination
In February 2013, during the Obama Administration, HUD for the first time issued regulations
“formaliz[ing] HUD’s long-held interpretation of the availability of ‘discriminatory effects’
liability under the Fair Housing Act and to provide nationwide consistency in the application of
that form of liability.”58 However, various court decisions raised doubts about the legality of the
2013 rule and disparate impact liability under the act general y.59 In 2015, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project,
Inc., held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.60 The Inclusive
Communities decision did not expressly adopt HUD’s 2013 rule. Rather, the Court adopted a
three-step burden-shifting test using language similar, but not identical, to the 2013 rule, while
also outlining a number of limiting factors that lower courts and HUD should apply when
assessing disparate impact claims.61
In September 2020, near the end of the Trump Administration, HUD issued a final rule that
amended the 2013 rule “to better reflect the Supreme Court’s 2015 [Inclusive Communities]
ruling.”62 The 2020 rule, among other things, would have imposed new pleading requirements on
plaintiffs to maintain a prima facie disparate impact claim and would have established new
defenses that a defendant could use to rebut disparate impact claims. Shortly thereafter, housing
advocates filed a lawsuit in a federal district court al eging that the 2020 rule should be set aside
because it is arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).63 Before the 2020 rule went into effect, the court issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining HUD from enforcing the 2020 rule and reinstating the 2013 rule until a
future order of the court.64
The court explained that the 2020 rule constituted a “massive overhaul” of the 2013 rule by
“introducing new, onerous pleading requirements,” “easing the burden on defendants of justifying

58 Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects
Standard,” 78 Federal Register 11460, February 15, 2013, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/02/15/
2013-03375/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standard.
59 See, for example, Am. Ins. Assoc. v. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev., 74 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (vacated and
remanded) (interpreting the Fair Housing Act as only prohibiting intentional discrimination, not discriminatory effects,
and vacating HUD’s 2013 rule). T he district court’s decision was subsequently vacated and remanded for
reconsideration in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Inclusive Communities ruling. Am. Ins. Assoc. v. Dept. of
Hous. and Urban Dev. No. 14-5321, September 23, 2015 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam ). T he Supreme Court has also granted
certiorari in two cases to address the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing
Act, which signaled to many that the Court was likely to reverse the prevailing understanding that t he act bars disparate
impact discrimination. T wp. of Mount Holly, N.J. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2824,
(2013); and Magner v. Gallagher, 132 S. Ct. 548 (2011). Both cases were dismissed before the Court heard any
argument. T wp. of Mount Holly, N.J. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 636, (2013); Magner v.
Gallagher, 132 S. Ct. 1306, (2012).
60 576 U.S. 519 (2015).
61 Ibid. at 531-45.
62 85 Federal Register 60288.
63 Mass. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. United States HUD, 496 F. Supp. 3d 600, 603 (D. Mass. 2020).
64 Ibid. at 612.
Congressional Research Service

22

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

a policy with discriminatory effect while at the same time rendering it more difficult for plaintiffs
to rebut that justification,” and “arm[ing] defendants with broad new defenses.”65 In the court’s
view, these alterations “weaken[], for housing discrimination victims and fair housing
organizations, disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act.”66 HUD argued that these
changes were justified because they brought the rule into alignment with Inclusive Communities
and “to provide better clarity to the public.”67 The court concluded that these major changes,
“which r[a]n the risk of neutering disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act,
appear[ed] inadequately justified” and “accomplish[ed] the opposite of clarity.”68 Consequently,
the court held that the plaintiffs demonstrated “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as
to their claim that the 2020 Rule [wa]s arbitrary and capricious under the APA.”69
On January 26, 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum directing HUD to “as soon as
practicable, take al steps necessary to examine the effects of the [2020 rule].”70 HUD responded
to this presidential directive by voluntarily dismissing its appeal of the federal district court’s
injunction71 and by proposing a regulation that would recodify the 2013 rule and effectively
rescind the 2020 rule.72 In a proposed rule issued on June 25, 2021, HUD expressed its belief
“that the practical effect of the 2020 Rule’s amendments is to severely limit HUD’s and plaintiffs’
use of the discriminatory effects framework in ways that substantial y diminish that frameworks’
effectiveness in accomplishing the purposes that Inclusive Communities articulated.”73 HUD
further explained that “the 2013 Rule has provided a workable and balanced framework for
investigating and litigating discriminatory effects claims that is consistent with the Act, HUD’s
own guidance, Inclusive Communities, and other jurisprudence.”74 As a consequence, parties who
previously filed suits chal enging the 2013 rule as inconsistent with Inclusive Communities could
continue the lawsuits because the 2013 rule has been reinstated.75
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R44203, Disparate Impact Claims Under the Fair Housing Act

65 Ibid. at 606-608.
66 Ibid. at 607.
67 Ibid. at 610.
68 Ibid. at 611.
69 Ibid.
70 T he White House, “Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of
Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies,” January 26, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-redressing-our-nations-and-the-federal-governments-history-of-
discriminatory-housing-practices-and-policies/.
71 Mass. Fair Housing Ctr. v. HUD, No 21-1003 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2021).
72 Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Reinstatement of HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Standard,” 86
Federal Register 33590, June 25, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/25/2021-13240/
reinstatement -of-huds-discriminatory-effects-standard.
73 Ibid. at 33594.
74 Ibid.
75 See, for example, Christopher J. Willis, Richard J. Andreano, Jr., and Lori J. Sommerfield, “President Biden Issues
Executive Order Directing HUD to Review Fair Housing Act Disparate Impact Rule,” Consumer Finance Monitor,
Ballard Spahr, LLP, February 3, 2021, https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2021/02/03/president-biden-issues-
executive-order-directing-hud-to-review-fair-housing-act-disparate-impact-rule/.
Congressional Research Service

23

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Racial Disparities in Housing
Despite the Fair Housing Act and other efforts, longstanding racial disparities in housing
outcomes persist. For many housing indicators, the discrepancy is especial y pronounced between
Black individuals and White individuals, including in homeownership rates,76 renter cost
burdens,77 and, most recently, the housing-related impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.78
While housing-related legislative proposals in general can have implications for racial disparities
in housing, the 117th Congress has signaled a particular interest in considering ways to directly
address such disparities. For example, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing in
March 2021 entitled “Justice for Al : Achieving Racial Equity Through Fair Access to Housing
and Financial Services.”79 The committee’s hearing memorandum included descriptions of
several introduced or draft bil s that would address specific issues related to housing and race, and
some of these bil s have since received additional consideration. For example, in April 2021 the
committee ordered to be reported the Real Estate Valuation Fairness and Improvement Act of
2021 (H.R. 2553), regarding potential racial disparities in appraisals. Similarly, the Senate
Banking Committee held a hearing in April 2021 entitled “Separate and Unequal: The Legacy of
Racial Discrimination in Housing,” which examined related issues.80
In June 2021, the Biden Administration released a fact sheet highlighting a number of actions it
has taken or proposed that it states wil help address racial disparities in housing.81
Housing and Climate Impacts
Many communities across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change. Many
extreme weather and climate-related events are expected to become more frequent and more
intense in a warmer world.82 Climate-related risks to the housing stock include the impacts of

76 In the fourth quarter of 2019, 73.7% of White householders owned homes, compared to 44% of Black householders;
see U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership historical tables, T able 16, https://www.census.gov/
housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html.
77 In 2019, 54% of Black renters spent more than 30% of income on housing, compared to 42% of White renters; see
Joint Center for Housing Studies, State of the Nation’s Housing 2020, Excel Data T able W-1,
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2020.
78 Black renters and homeowners have been more likely than White renters and homeowners to report being behind on
housing payments during the pandemic; see Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Housing insecurity and the
COVID-19 pandem ic, March 2021, p. 8, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/
cfpb_Housing_insecurity_and_the_COVID-19_pandemic.pdf.
79 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Justice for All: Achieving Racial Equity Through Fair
Access to Housing and Financial Services, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 10, 2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/
calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=406264.
80 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Separate and Unequal: The Legacy of
Racial Discrim ination in Housing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 13, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/
separate-and-unequal-the-legacy-of-racial-discrimination-in-housing.
81 T he White House, “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Build Black Wealth and
Narrow the Racial Wealth Gap,” June 1, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/
06/01/fact -sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-to-build-black-wealth-and-narrow-the-racial-
wealth-gap/.
82 D.R. Reidmiller, C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling et al., Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth
National Clim ate Assessm ent, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Volume II, Washington, DC, November 23,
2018, pp. 1-47, https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ (hereinafter, Fourth National Clim ate Assessm ent).
Congressional Research Service

24

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

flooding and coastal erosion,83 sea level rise,84 and increased wildfire activity from extreme heat
events combined with drought.85 This vulnerability to the effects of climate change has increased
interest in improving the resilience of the nation’s housing stock and mitigating housing’s
climate-related impacts through increased energy efficiency or other measures.86
Both Congress and the White House have put forward funding proposals to address climate-
related housing issues. For example, funding for various climate-related housing activities is
included in the White House’s American Jobs Plan infrastructure proposal,87 the FY2022 HUD
budget proposal,88 and the Housing is Infrastructure bil (H.R. 4497) introduced by House
Financial Services Chairwoman Waters in July 2021 as part of a legislative housing package.89 In
addition, in May 2021 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “Built to
Last: Examining Housing Resilience in the Face of Climate Change.”90
Climate impacts may also have implications for housing markets and housing finance. A number
of studies suggest that risks associated with sea level rise are not fully reflected in home prices,91
though there are already indications of reductions in property prices in homes subject to recurring
flooding.92 For example, a nationwide evaluation of the effect of floodplain location on property

83 As of 2013 (the most recent data available in the Fourth National Climate Assessment), coastal shoreline counties
were home to 133.2 million people, or 42% of the population, and 49.4 million housing units. See Fourth National
Clim ate Assessm ent, pp. 323-330. T he numbers cited by the Fourth National Clim ate Assessm ent come from a Reuters
analysis of data provided by RealtyT rac; incomplete data for some areas means the actual total is probably much
higher. See Ryan McNeill, Deborah J. Nelson, and Duff Wilson, “ As the Seas Rise, A Slow-Motion Disaster Gnaws at
America’s Shores,” Reuters, September 4, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/waters-edge-the-
crisis-of-rising-sea-levels/.
84 For example, 13.1 million people may need to move away from the shoreline by 2100, as flooding and erosion make
coastal floodplains increasingly hazardous. Under a high climate change scenario, between $66 billion and $106 billion
worth of real estate will be below sea level by 2050, and $238 billion to $507 billion by 2100. See Fourth National
Clim ate Assessm ent, pp. 330, 335, and 338.
85 Research suggests that there are now about 49 million homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI)—the area where
houses are in or adjacent to wildland vegetation —which has the highest residential wildfire risk. T his number has been
increasing by roughly 350,000 houses per year over the last two decades. See Marshall Burke, Anne Driscoll, Jenny
Xue et al., The Changing Risk and Burden of Wildfire in the US , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working
Paper 27423, Cambridge, MA, June 2020, p. 2, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27423.
86 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing 2020, Cambridge, MA,
December 16, 2020, p. 7, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2020.
87 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/26/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan-
will-produce-preserve-and-retrofit -more-than-2-million-affordable-housing-units-and-create-good-paying-jobs/.
88 See HUD’s FY2022 budget justifications at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/
6_2022CJ_ClimateInitiative.pdf.
89 See House Financial Services Committee, House Financial Services Committee, “Waters Announces Introduction of
Groundbreaking Legislative Housing P ackage,” press release, July 15, 2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408154, for a link to the bill text.
90 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and
Insurance, Built to Last: Exam ining Housing Resilience in the Face of Clim ate Change , 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 4,
2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=407747.
91 See, for example, Laura A. Bakkensen and Lint Barrage, Flood Risk Belief Heterogeneity and Coastal Home Price
Dynam ic: Going Under Water? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23854, Cambridge, MA,
February 2021, pp. 8-10, https://www.nber.org/papers/w23854.
92 See, for example, Benjamin J. Keys and Philip Mulder, Neglected No More: Housing Markets, Mortgage Lending,
and Sea Level Rise, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 27930, Cambridge, MA, October 2020, p.
3, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27930/w27930.pdf; and Stephen A. McAlpine and Jeremy R.
Porter, “Estimating Recent Local Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on Current Real-Estate Losses: A Housing Market Case
Study in Miami-Dade, Florida,” Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 27 (2018), pp. 871-895.
Congressional Research Service

25

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

prices by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that for single-family homes,
being zoned into the floodplain reduces property values by 2% to 10%, with the strongest
discount in states with strict real estate disclosure laws. The NBER estimates that there are at
least 3.8 mil ion floodplain homes in the United States that are overvalued by a total of $34
bil ion.93
FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have noted that they may be exposed to the risk of future
losses from natural disasters on mortgages that they own or guarantee, particularly as the
magnitude and frequency of these disasters increases with climate change.94 As climate impacts
grow over time, the mortgages on such properties may become riskier.95 The FHFA recently
issued a request for input on climate change and natural disaster risk to the housing finance
system.96 Furthermore, in Executive Order 14030, signed on May 20, 2021, President Biden
directed the HUD Secretary, with other cabinet secretaries, to consider approaches to better
integrate climate-related financial risk into underwriting standards, loan terms and conditions, and
asset management and servicing procedures, as related to their federal lending policies and
programs.97
Housing and Disaster Response and Recovery
The extent to which federal policies adequately and effectively address the housing needs of
disaster survivors as wel as the range of disasters that occur is of ongoing interest to
policymakers. When disasters occur, the President may authorize an emergency or major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford
Act; P.L. 93-288, as amended). The declaration may authorize the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to provide housing assistance, including through the Individuals
and Households Program (IHP).98 Additional y, Congress may appropriate further relief and
recovery funding for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR)
program.

93 Miyuki Hino and Marshall Burke, Does Information About Climate Risk Affect Property Values? National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper 26807, Cambridge, MA, February 2020, https://www.nber.org/papers/w26807.
94 Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of the Inspector General, Disaster Risk for Enterprise Single-Family
Mortgages, White Paper WPR-2021-004, Washington, DC, March 23, 2021, pp. 5 -8, https://www.fhfaoig.gov/sites/
default/files/WPR-2021-004.pdf.
95 Lael Brainard, Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, “Financial Stability Implications of Climate
Change,” speech at “T ransform Tomorrow T oday,” Ceres 2021 Conference, Boston, MA, March 23, 2021,
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20210323a.htm.
96 Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of the Director, Climate and Natural Disaster Risk Management at the
Regulated Entities: Request for Input, January 2021, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Documents/Climate-
and-Natural-Disaster-RFI.pdf.
97 Executive Order 14030, “Climate-Related Financial Risk,” 86(99) Federal Register 27967-27971, May 20, 2021,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-25/pdf/2021-11168.pdf.
98 42 U.S.C. §5174. See also 44 C.F.R. §206.110(a), and FEMA, Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide
(IAPPG), FP 104-009-03, v. 1.1, May 2021, pp. 6, 41, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_individual-assistance-program_policy-guide_05-26-2021.pdf (hereinafter FEMA, IAPPG).
Congressional Research Service

26

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

FEMA IHP Housing Assistance
IHP Housing Assistance for Economically Destructive Disasters
Stafford Act declarations tend to respond to natural disasters that result in physical damages (e.g.,
hurricanes); however, although uncommon, there have been declarations for incidents that do not
result in physical damages, such as public health incidents (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic).
Disasters commonly have economic consequences. During the early response to the COVID-19
pandemic, Congress considered the federal government’s options for providing rental assistance
payments to individuals experiencing financial hardship due to the pandemic. Although Rental
Assistance is a form of IHP assistance,99 it is premised on an individual being displaced from
their primary residence because it is uninhabitable, inaccessible, unavailable due to forced
relocation, or nonfunctional due to utility outages.100 FEMA does not have the statutory authority
to provide temporary rental or mortgage payments when people experience disaster-caused
financial hardship. However, this has not always been the case. Prior to May 2002, the Stafford
Act authorized assistance to disaster survivors unable to make mortgage or rental payments.
Section 206 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K; P.L. 106-390) amended the Stafford
Act to remove temporary mortgage and rental payments, and add the language predicating
assistance on displacement.101
DMA2K was general y intended to control the federal cost of disaster assistance; however, the
specific justification for removing the provision of mortgage and rental payments from the
amended version of the Stafford Act is not specified in the committee reports on the bil .102
Congress may continue to evaluate whether FEMA’s housing assistance programs are adequate
and appropriate to meet the needs of survivors following disasters that result in economic, rather
than physical, damages—as this was a gap that was revealed by the economic effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
IHP Housing Assistance and Hazard Mitigation
IHP housing assistance may take various forms, including temporary assistance to rent alternate
accommodations and assistance for repair and reconstruction, such as through Home Repair
Assistance. The objective of Home Repair Assistance is to make the disaster survivors’ home

99 42 U.S.C. §5174(c)(1)(A).
100 42 U.S.C. §5174(b)(1); see also FEMA, IAPPG, pp. 80-81.
101 See the prior version of the Stafford Act’s provision of temporary rental or mortgage payments at 42 U.S.C.
§5174(b), 2001, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2001-title42/pdf/USCODE-2001-title42-chap68-
subchapIV-sec5174.pdf.
102 U.S. Congress, House Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act
of 1999, 106th Cong., 1st sess., March 3, 1999, Report 106-40, pp. 1, 12, 17, https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt40/
CRPT -106hrpt40.pdf. During the 108th Congress, then Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Inspector
General Richard L. Skinner included in his statement, with regard to “Eligibility Issues in the Mortgage and Rental
Assistance Program,” that “FEMA historically has not had to implement the Mortgage and Rental Assistance (MRA)
program on a large scale because previous disasters did not coincide with nor result in widespread unemployment and
national economic losses. From the inception of MRA until September 11, 2001, on ly $18.1 million had been awarded
under the program for 68 declared disasters, compared to approximately $76 million as a result of the New York
disaster alone. Because it was seldom used, Congress eliminated the program when it enacted the Disaster Mitiga tion
Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) making the program unavailable after May 1, 2002.” U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety, Review of the
General Accounting Office Report on FEMA’s Activities After the Terrorist Attacks on Septem ber 11, 2001 , 108th
Cong., 1st sess., September 24, 2003, S.Hrg. 108-364, p. 253.
Congressional Research Service

27

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

“safe, sanitary, or functional,” not to return the home to its pre-disaster condition or to improve
it.103 Stil , repairs may include hazard mitigation measures to make the housing more resilient.104
On June 10, 2021, FEMA announced an expansion of the mitigation assistance provided for IHP
Home Repair Assistance for disasters declared on or after May 26, 2021, to “al ow eligible
homeowners ... [to] repair or rebuild stronger, more durable homes.”105
FEMA’s guidance details the types of mitigation measures that are available under the IHP.106 Its
regulations and guidance impose limitations on the mitigation assistance that may be provided,
including that it may only be awarded for disaster-damaged real property components that existed
and were functional prior to the declared disaster,107 and the amount of financial assistance for
housing is capped in statute.108 Additional y, although hazard mitigation measures are intended to
“reduce the likelihood of future damage,” this assistance is not available until after a disaster has
occurred and received a presidential Stafford Act declaration.109
Congress may consider whether the funding for mitigation measures provided for Home Repair
Assistance is sufficient, and could also consider whether there is a need to expand eligibility for
pre-disaster mitigation or expand the programs that support pre-disaster mitigation.
CDBG-DR
Following some disasters, Congress has provided Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding in supplementary appropriations for disaster recovery purposes, which has come
to be known as CDBG-DR. These HUD-administered grants assist impacted states and localities
in their recovery efforts under CDBG statutory authorities. CDBG-DR is not a formal y
authorized program, meaning the rules that govern the funding use and oversight vary with HUD
guidance accompanying each al ocation. Previous Congresses, including the 116th Congress,
considered legislation to permanently authorize CDBG-DR, and it is possible that the 117th
Congress could consider such legislation as wel .
For more information on CDBG-DR, see the following:
 CRS Report R46475, The Community Development Block Grant’s Disaster
Recovery (CDBG-DR) Component: Background and Issues

103 FEMA, IAPPG, p. 85.
104 FEMA, IAPPG, p. 86.
105 FEMA, “Hazard Mitigation Under the Individuals and Households Program,” press release, June 10, 2021,
https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/hazard-mitigation-under-individuals-and-households-program (hereinafter FEMA,
“Hazard Mitigation Under the IHP”).
106 FEMA, “Hazard Mitigation Under the IHP.”
107 44 C.F.R. §§206.111 and 206.117(a), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv); and FEMA, IAPPG, p. 87.
108 42 U.S.C. §5174(h)(1); and FEMA, IAPPG, pp. 42, 85. For FY2021, the maximum amount of financial assistance
for housing is $36,000; see FEMA, “Notice of Maximum Amount of Assistance Under the Individuals and Households
Program,” 85 Federal Register 69340, November 2, 2020, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-02/pdf/
2020-24235.pdf.
109 FEMA, IAPPG, pp. 85-86. Homeowners may benefit from hazard mitigation projects, such as those funded through
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), but an individual homeowner is not able to apply directly for HMGP
funding; see FEMA, “ Property Owners and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,” last accessed June 11, 2021,
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation/property-owners.
Congressional Research Service

28

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

CFPB Revisions to the Qualified Mortgage Rule
The Dodd-Frank Wal Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act; P.L. 111-
203) was enacted in 2010 to address conditions that were perceived to have led to the 2007-2009
housing and financial crisis. Among other provisions, it required lenders to make a good faith
effort to ensure that residential borrowers have the ability to repay their mortgage loans. If a
borrower brings a lawsuit claiming that a lender did not follow this requirement, the lender could
be required to pay monetary damages if it is found to be in violation.110 The CFPB released a final
rule implementing these ability-to-repay (ATR) requirements in January 2013; the rule took effect
in January 2014.111
One of several ways that a mortgage originator can comply with the ATR requirements is by
originating a qualified mortgage (QM), a mortgage that meets certain specified underwriting and
product feature requirements. A QM reduces an originator’s legal liability by providing either a
rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ATR requirements or safe harbor protection,
depending on the loan’s pricing. The QM rule has been amended several times since being
finalized in 2013.112 In December 2020, near the end of the Trump Administration, the CFPB
issued a final rule making certain changes to the definition of a General QM.113 Among other
things, it replaced a limit on the al owable debt-to-income ratio for a General QM with a measure
of the loan’s pricing with the aim of increasing credit access to households that have
demonstrated the ability to repay loans despite having lower income.114 The CFPB also issued a
new “seasoned QM” rule.115 Under this rule, certain non-QM mortgages could become QMs or
certain rebuttable presumption QMs could become safe harbor QMs after a lender has held them
in its own portfolio for a certain amount of time.
In March 2021, the CFPB issued a proposed rule to delay the mandatory compliance date of the
revised General QM rule by over a year, from July 1, 2021, to October 1, 2022.116 The delay
would give the incoming CFPB leadership time to review the revisions. (Mortgage originators
could choose to comply with either the old or the new QM rule in the interim.) Despite support

110 15 U.S.C. §1640
111 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Under the T ruth in
Lending Act (Regulation Z),” 78 Federal Register 6408-6620, January 30, 2013.
112 For amendments to the AT R/QM rule, see Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Final Rule: Ability -to-
Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule,” at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/ability-to-pay-qualified-
mortgage-rule/.
113 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition Under the T ruth in Lending Act
(Regulation Z): General QM Loan Definition,” 85 Federal Register 86308-86400, December 29, 2020.
114 For example, the CFPB found that some households had difficulty refinancing into less expensive lo ans because
their debt -to-income ratio exceeded the 43% threshold for lenders to receive safe harbor protection. See CFPB, Ability-
to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Rule Assessm ent Report, January 2019, pp. 11, 147-153,
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ability-to-repay-qualified-mortgage_assessment -report.pdf.
115 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mort gage Definition Under the T ruth in Lending Act
(Regulation Z): Seasoned QM Loan Definition,” 85 Federal Register 86402-86455, December 29, 2020. T his
amendment was implemented as required by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection A ct
of 2018 (P.L. 115-174).
116 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition Under the T ruth in Lending Act
(Regulation Z): General QM Loan Definition; Delay of Mandatory Compliance Date,” 86 Federal Register 12839-
12857, March 5, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

29

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

for the 2020 amendments from some in the mortgage industry,117 the CFPB issued a final rule on
April 30, 2021, adopting the delay.118
The CFPB has also indicated that it may reconsider the seasoned QM rule, as wel as aspects of
the General QM rule, in the future.119
For more information, see the following:
 CRS In Focus IF11761, The Qualified Mortgage (QM) Rule and Recent
Revisions
Status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
In 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two GSEs that guarantee mortgage-backed securities and
together back about half of the U.S. mortgage market, were experiencing financial difficulties
stemming from the housing and mortgage market turmoil that was taking place during the
financial crisis at the time. They consented to enter conservatorship overseen by the FHFA, their
new regulator established by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289).
Treasury agreed to provide financial support in exchange for senior preferred stock in each GSE
and the option to purchase up to 79.9% of common stock at a nominal cost in the future. Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac have remained in conservatorship since that time. They could ultimately
leave conservatorship through legislative action,120 or, potential y, through administrative actions
taken by the FHFA and Treasury.
Whether or not it pursues a legislative resolution to the conservatorship, Congress may take an
interest in any actions by the FHFA that could affect the eventual release of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac from conservatorship, or in how actions the FHFA takes affect homebuyers and the
mortgage market. In June 2021, the Supreme Court, in Collins v. Yellen, struck down as
unconstitutional a statutory provision that had limited the ability of the President to remove an
FHFA Director during a director’s five-year term.121 The decision al ows the President to remove
the director at wil , rather than only for cause. Following that decision, President Biden removed
FHFA Director Mark Calabria and designated as Acting FHFA Director Sandra L. Thompson,
who had been serving as the FHFA’s Deputy Director of the Division of Housing Mission and

117 See, for example, Mortgage Bankers Association, “MBA Urges No Delay to CFPB QM Final Rule,” April 7, 2021,
https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2021/april/mba-newslink-wednesday-apr-7-2021/mba-urges-no-delay-to-
cfpb-qm-final-rule/; and Center For Responsible Lending, “ CRL Statement on CFPB’s Plan to Revise Qualified
Mortgage Standards,” press release, January 24, 2020, at https://www.responsiblelending.org/media/crl-statement-
cfpbs-plan-revise-qualified-mortgage-standards.
118 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition under the T ruth in Lending Act (Regulation
Z): General,” 86 Federal Register 22844-22860, April 30, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/04/
30/2021-09028/qualified-mortgage-definition-under-the-truth-in-lending-act-regulation-z-general-qm-loan-definition.
119 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “ Statement on Mandatory Compliance Date of General QM Final Rule and
Possible Reconsideration of General QM Final Rule and Seasoned QM Final Rule,” February 23, 2021,
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_qm-statement_2021-02.pdf.
120 Previous Congresses have considered legislative housing finance reform to varying degrees, and many proposals for
reforming the housing finance system have been put forward by Members of Congress, think tanks, and industry
groups. In March 2021, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat T oomey released a set of guiding principles
for housing finance reform; see “ T oomey Outlines Housing Finance Reform Principles,” press release, March 15, 2021,
https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-outlines-housing-finance-reform-principles#:~:text=
today%20released%20a%20set%20of,equitable%20access%20for%20all%20lenders.
121 Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021).
Congressional Research Service

30

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Goals.122 New leadership at the FHFA could likely have implications for policy decisions related
to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R44525, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Conservatorship:
Frequently Asked Questions
 CRS Report R46746, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Recent Administrative
Developments
 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10614, Supreme Court: Structure of Federal Housing
Finance Agency Violates Constitution

Author Information

Katie Jones, Coordinator
Maggie McCarty
Analyst in Housing Policy
Specialist in Housing Policy

David H. Carpenter
Libby Perl
Legislative Attorney
Specialist in Housing Policy

Darryl E. Getter
Elizabeth M. Webster
Specialist in Financial Economics
Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster

Recovery

Diane P. Horn
Lida R. Weinstock
Analyst in Flood Insurance and Emergency
Analyst in Macroeconomic Policy
Management

122 FHFA, “ Sandra L. T hompson Announced as Acting Director of FHFA,” news release, June 23, 2021,
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Sandra-L-T hompson-Announced-as-Acting-Director-of-FHFA.aspx.
See also FHFA, “ FHFA Director Mark Calabria’s Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Collins v. Yellen Decision,”
June 23, 2021, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Director-Mark-Calabrias-Statement -on-the-
US-Supreme-Courts-Collins-v-Yellen-Decision.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

31

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46855 · VERSION 1 · NEW
32