Housing Issues in the 117th Congress
April 15, 2022
As the 117th Congress began, housing challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic
continued to be a primary concern. In March 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan
Katie Jones, Coordinator
Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2), a wide-ranging pandemic relief and response law that included funding
Analyst in Housing Policy
for several new and existing housing programs to help address the effects of the pandemic,

including funding for rental assistance, homeowner assistance, and homelessness assistance.

The 117th Congress has also been considering a variety of other housing-related issues. Housing
affordability is a perennial policy issue, but it has become particularly salient in light of increasing housing prices and
ongoing housing supply constraints. There have been a variety of proposals to address housing affordability concerns,
including significant new funding for affordable housing programs in proposed infrastructure packages (including the Build
Back Better Act). Through hearings and proposed legislation, Congress has also expressed interest in addressing racial
disparities in housing outcomes, in issues related to housing and climate resiliency, and in housing and disaster response.
Other issues involve changes to housing-related rulemakings, including mortgage regulations promulgated 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 more than 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 been low, helping to spur homebuyer demand. (Mortgage interest rates have begun to
increase in the first months of 2022.) 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 issues
during the 117th Congress.
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.
Housing policy priorities at the beginning of the 117th Congress continued to be 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 of
2021 (P.L. 117-2), a pandemic relief and recovery law enacted early in the 117th Congress.
Housing affordability, while a perennial policy issue, has been a prominent concern during the
117th Congress in light of house price increases and limited housing supply affecting both
homeownership and rental markets. A variety of policy proposals have been put forward to
address the affordability of both rental housing and homeownership, including proposals for new
housing funding that have been included in broader infrastructure proposals.
Several other housing policy considerations have also been of interest to the 117th Congress. For
example, Congress has signaled an interest in addressing racial disparities in housing. It has also
focused attention on issues related to housing and climate as well as disaster resiliency. In
addition, 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, have been in conservatorship since 2008.
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 begins with an overview of certain housing and mortgage market indicators. It then
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

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
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7 Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

housing finance,2 and rental markets. The discussion of market conditions presented in this
section is 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 overall sense of general trends in housing.
In general, during the 117th Congress, both homeownership and rental markets have been
characterized by low levels of supply (i.e., relatively low numbers of homes available for sale or
rent) and, relatedly, significant increases in house prices and rents. These price increases have
made housing affordability concerns a prominent issue. A variety of factors, on both the supply
side and the demand side, have contributed to low housing inventory levels. While there have
been some increases in housing construction activity, challenges related to rising construction
costs and the availability of labor and materials persist.
Single-Family House Prices
As shown in Figure 1, nominal house prices3 have increased nationally 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 continued into 2021, with nominal house prices increasing by more than 17% in the fourth
quarter of 2021 over the same quarter a year earlier.5

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
owner-occupants, or they may be second homes or investment properties. Rental housing units may be in single-family
or multifamily properties.
3 The Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index measures 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. FHFA weights, indexes, and seasonally adjusts nominal price change data. For
more information, see “FHFA House Price Index” at https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/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 17.5 Percent over the Last Year; Up 3.3% from the Third
Quarter,” news release, February 22, 2022, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/US-House-Prices-Rise-
17pt5-Percent-over-the-Last-Year-Up-3pt3-Percent-from-the-Third-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–Q4 2021

Source: Figure created by CRS using data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index
(Seasonally 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 generally 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.
For more information on recent home price increases, see the following:
 CRS In Focus IF12048, High Home Prices: Contributing Factors and Policy
Considerations
Home Mortgage Interest Rates
Most homebuyers take out a mortgage to purchase a home, especially 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 well as the costs of those mortgages impact housing demand and affordability.
Mortgage interest rates have been low by historical standards for several years, and fell 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% in several months in 2020
and 2021. Rates began to increase in early 2022. The average mortgage interest rate in March
2022 was 4.17%, compared to 3.08% in March 2021 and 3.45% in March 2020.

6 According to the National Association of Realtors’ 2021 Profile of Homebuyers and Sellers, about 87% of
homebuyers who purchased a primary residence between July 2020 and June 2021 financed the purchase. See National
Association of Realtors, Highlights from the 2021 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers, November 2021, p. 9,
https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2021-highlights-from-the-profile-of-home-buyers-and-sellers-11-
11-2021.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Figure 3. Mortgage Interest Rates
January 1995–March 2022

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 generally
number in the millions each year, while new home sales are usually in the hundreds of
thousands. As shown in Figure 4, home sales fell for several years after 2005 and remained low
through the aftermath of the housing and financial crisis of 2007-2009 before generally 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 million, the highest figure since 2006 and an
increase from 6.0 million in 2019. Existing home sales in 2020 numbered 5.6 million, while new
home sales numbered 815,000; both of these levels were the highest since 2006 as well. Although
home sales have generally been increasing in recent years, the supply of homes on the market has
generally 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 declined 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 less than 1.4 million in 2020.7 The low housing inventory
has been driven by several factors, including ongoing shortfalls 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
shortfalls; 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 typically 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 seasonally adjusted annual rate of starts on one-unit homes from January
1995 through February 2022.11 Housing starts for single-family homes fell during the housing and
financial crisis that began around 2007, reflecting decreased home purchase demand. Housing
starts have generally been increasing since about 2012, and while they initially showed a steep
drop early in the pandemic, they have since rebounded and reached their highest levels since
about 2006. Nevertheless, new housing construction has arguably remained below the levels

10 The 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 Press Release FAQs,” at https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/faqs/
faqs_nrc_release.html#quest4.
11 The number of housing starts is consistently higher than the number of new home sales. This 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

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

necessary to meet demand.12 Some research has suggested that this shortfall has been particularly
acute for smaller, more affordable starter homes.13
Figure 6. Single-Family Housing Starts
(Seasonally 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 February 2022.
Notes: Figure reflects starts in one-unit structures only, some of which may be built for rent rather than sale.
The seasonally adjusted annual rate is the number of housing starts that would be expected if the number of
homes started in that month (on a seasonally adjusted basis) were extrapolated over an entire year. Gray bars
indicate recessions.
Single-Family Mortgage Market Composition
Most homebuyers use a mortgage to purchase a home. 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.14 Two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, purchase
mortgages and issue mortgage-backed securities, providing a guarantee that investors in those
securities will receive timely principal and interest payments even if borrowers default on the
underlying mortgages. 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
well as the federal government’s exposure to risk.

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.
13 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.
14 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 13

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

As shown in Figure 7, about 55% of mortgage originations (by dollar volume) in 2021 were
securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. About 28% were held in financial institutions’
portfolios, and about 15% were securitized FHA or VA loans. About 2% of originations were
included in private-label securities.
Figure 7. Share of Mortgage Originations by Type
2021

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, February 2022, p. 8.
Notes: Figure shows share of first-lien mortgage originations by dol ar volume.
The percentage of loan volume (55%) securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in 2021 was a
decrease from nearly 60% in 2020 (the highest level since 2013), but an increase from 43% in
2019. The FHA/VA share also decreased somewhat, to 15%, compared to 18% in 2020 and 19%
in 2019. The bank portfolio share increased in 2021, to 28% from 22% in 2020, but was lower
than the 36% share in 2019. Private label securities increased to 2% from 1%.15 The overall
volume of mortgage originations also increased significantly, rising from about $2.4 trillion in
2019 to more than $4.0 trillion in 2020 and an estimated $4.7 trillion in 2021.16 Much of this
increase was driven by high refinancing volumes due to low interest rates.

15 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, February 2022, p. 8,
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/housing-finance-glance-monthly-chartbook-february-2022. Other monthly
issues of Housing Finance at a Glance can be found on the Urban Institute’s website at https://www.urban.org/tags/
housing-finance-glance-monthly-chartbook.
16 See Freddie Mac’s Quarterly Forecasts, 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; 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: The Housing Market Expected to Remain Stable Despite Rising Rates and Cooling Price Growth,
January 21, 2022, https://www.freddiemac.com/research/forecast/20220121-quarterly-economic-forecast.

Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

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 homeownership rate fell from a high of 69.0% in the mid-
2000s to 63.4% in 2016, before rising again and reaching 66.6% in 2020. However, data
collection for the Census Bureau survey that reports these statistics was affected by the COVID-
19 pandemic; therefore, 2020 figures, in particular, may not be comparable with other years.17 In
2021, the homeownership rate was 65.5%.
As the homeownership rate decreased, the share of renters correspondingly 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 fall further, to 33.4%, in 2020, although
the 2020 data were subject to the changes in data collection procedures caused by the COVID-19
pandemic. In 2021, the renter share was 34.5%.
Figure 8. Renter and Homeownership Rates
1995–2021

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 overall number of occupied housing units also increased over this period, from nearly 110
million in 2006 to nearly 127 million in 2021.18 The number of renter-occupied units increased
from about 34 million in 2006 to about 44 million in 2021. The number of owner-occupied
housing units fell from about 75 million in 2006 to about 74 million in 2014; it has since
increased to about 83 million in 2021.

17 See U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) Changes,
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/annual21/ann21src.pdf.
18 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership, Historical Tables, Table 7, “Annual Estimates of the
Housing Inventory: 1965 to Present,” http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Composition of the Rental Housing Stock
Rental units can be in a variety of property types, including single-family homes, small
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 dwelling units:
about 33% of rental units were in 1-unit properties, and about 17% were in 2-4 unit properties).
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.19
Figure 9. Rental Stock by Number of Units in Property
2019

Source: Figure created by CRS using American Community Survey one-year estimates.
Note: Due to the impact of COVID-19, the Census Bureau did not release standard one-year estimates as is
routine for the American Community Survey. Instead, they released certain experimental estimates for 2020
one-year data. Due to the experimental nature of these estimates, this report does not include a discussion of
these results. For more information about the 2020 experimental data, see U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 ACS 1-Year
Experimental Data Release, November 30, 2021, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-
data.html.
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 smaller buildings than large multifamily buildings. According to HUD’s 2018 Rental
Housing Finance Survey, about 42% of rental properties have a mortgage.20 However, the
likelihood of a property being mortgaged increases with property size,21 suggesting that a larger
share of rental units are in properties with a mortgage. In general, single-family rental properties

19 Data are from American Community Survey 2019 one-year estimates, Table B25032. A small number of occupied
rental units are reported as being in other types of structures, including boats and recreational vehicles.
20 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.
21 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.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

are financed with single-family mortgages while financing for multifamily properties is obtained
through the multifamily and commercial mortgage market.22
Rental Vacancy Rates
As shown in Figure 10, the rental vacancy rate has generally 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 essentially unchanged from the end of 2019.23
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.24 The rental vacancy
rate in the fourth quarter of 2021 was 5.6%. The pandemic continued to affect data collection in
2021, although by the fourth quarter of 2021, pandemic-related restrictions on data collection for
this survey had ended. However, the Census Bureau continues to urge caution in comparing data
to previous affected quarters.25
Figure 10. Rental Vacancy Rates
Q1 1995–Q4 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.

22 For more information on multifamily mortgages, see CRS Report R46480, Multifamily Housing Finance and
Selected Policy Issues.
23 The 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.
24 See U.S. Census Bureau, “Frequently asked questions: The 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. The Census Bureau suggests that changes in vacancy rates during that period
should be interpreted as reflecting both pandemic effects and changes to data collection procedures.
25 U.S. Census Bureau, “Quarterly Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, Fourth Quarter 2021,” press release,
February 2, 2022, https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/qtr421/q421press.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Notes: Because data col ection procedures were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic during some quarters in
2020 and 2021, the Census Bureau urges caution in interpreting estimates from affected quarters and in
comparing those estimates to previous or subsequent quarterly estimates. Gray bars indicate recessions.
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 well as households of all income
levels, but they are highest among lower-income renter households. As shown in Figure 11, about
46% of all renter households were cost-burdened in 2019 (about 22% had moderate cost burdens
and 24% had severe cost burdens). Cost burdens, and especially 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
2021, Appendix Tables, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2021, 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 all spending
on the construction of new single- and multi-family structures, residential remodeling, and
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

brokers’ fees. Housing services includes all spending on renters’ utilities and rent and
homeowners’ imputed rent26 and utility payments.
As shown in Figure 12, residential investment was $885.2 billion in 2020 and accounted for
roughly 4% of GDP. Housing services were $2.8 trillion 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 fell rapidly
during it. Since the crisis, housing’s share of output has risen more gradually 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 with the business cycle.
Spending on housing can increase even as economic output falls, as witnessed during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Nevertheless, house price movements can influence residential investment, and therefore, affect
macroeconomic activity, all else being equal. Rising home prices likely encourage greater
construction (in order to take advantage of the higher sale prices on the completed new homes),
and possibly resulting in more jobs for construction workers. 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-called wealth effects. In this case, if the
value of homeowners’ assets (and therefore net wealth) increases, they may be inclined to
increase their consumption, which can stimulate the economy. In the United States, consumer

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

14

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

spending makes up roughly 70% of the economy; therefore, changes in housing wealth can result
in significant changes in GDP. While rising home prices may generally result in increasing
residential investment and potentially GDP, rising home prices may also result in decreased
housing affordability, which could offset some of the positive effects on the economy.
For more information on housing’s contribution to the overall 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 continue to evolve as the 117th Congress
progresses, this section provides a high-level overview of some broad issues that have been of
interest to Congress.
Housing Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts have raised concerns about the ability of
individuals and families to afford their housing, as well as spillover 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). Some temporary
protections—including eviction and foreclosure moratoriums—have ended during the 117th
Congress, raising concerns about the number of households that 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 federally backed
mortgages, and temporary eviction and foreclosure moratoriums that applied to
certain federally 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.
Congressional Research Service

15

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

117th Congress
During the 117th Congress, both Congress and federal agencies have taken various actions to
continue to address the housing-related impacts of the pandemic. At the same time, some of the
temporary protections that had been put in place to assist renters and homeowners affected by the
pandemic—namely, federal foreclosure and eviction moratoriums—have ended during this
Congress. Major actions related to COVID-19 and housing during the 117th Congress are
summarized below.
Housing Funding in the American Rescue Plan Act
In March 2021, the 117th Congress passed and President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021 (ARPA, P.L. 117-2) to provide additional pandemic relief funding. The enacted law
included funding for several new and existing housing programs, including additional funding for
emergency rental assistance, a new Homeowner Assistance Fund, homelessness assistance,
housing counseling, Native American housing programs, and fair housing activities.
For more information, see
 CRS Insight IN11641, Housing Funding in the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021
Federal Eviction Moratorium and Emergency Rental Assistance
The 117th Congress has seen the continuation of efforts begun in the 116th Congress to forestall
evictions, and the resulting residential displacement, of renters triggered by the economic fallout
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the beginning of the 117th Congress, a nationwide temporary federal eviction moratorium was
in effect. The eviction moratorium had been ordered by the CDC—pursuant to its public health
authorities—in September 2020 and was slated to expire at the end of the year (December 31,
2020). However, prior to its expiration, the 116th Congress extended it legislatively, through
January 31, 2021. The CDC subsequently administratively updated/extended the order several
times, the last time through October 3, 2021. However, the national eviction moratorium was
effectively ended on August 26, 2021, when the Supreme Court blocked its enforcement of the
order, following a series of legal challenges. (Some state and local eviction moratoriums
remained in place beyond the end of the federal moratorium.)
At the same time that the federal eviction moratorium was in place, Congress—first the 116th and
then the 117th—funded a new federal Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program at the
Treasury Department. The first tranche of ERA funding—$25 billion—was provided by the
FY2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2020. The second tranche of ERA
funding—$21.55 billion—was appropriated by ARPA. While there are some differences between
ERA-1 and ERA-2, generally, both rounds of funding were awarded via formula to states and
localities to be used to fund rental and utility payments and arrearages for low-income renters.
Some policymakers and other stakeholders expressed concern about the slow award of ERA
funds to at-risk renters, particularly in light of the end of eviction moratoriums. Treasury
published multiple revisions to program guidance, as well as best practices, to attempt to speed
dispersal. In June 2021, the White House announced implementation of “a whole-of-government
Congressional Research Service

16

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

effort to raise awareness about emergency rental assistance.”27 This included 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, and the convening of
a White House summit to plan for eviction prevention. In January 2022, Treasury implemented
the first round of statutorily directed recapture of ERA-1 funding from states and localities that
did not meet spending targets, reallocating funds to communities that demonstrated they could
use additional funding. Treasury has continued to recapture and reallocate unused ERA funding,
as directed by the ERA statutes.
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Insight IN11673, The CDC’s Federal Eviction Moratorium
 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10632, Litigation of the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium
 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10638, Supreme Court Blocks Enforcement of the CDC’s
Eviction Moratorium
 CRS Report R46688, Pandemic Relief: The Emergency Rental Assistance
Program
Actions Related to COVID-19 and Mortgages
The 117th Congress has also seen the continuation of efforts begun in the 116th Congress to assist
homeowners who may be having difficulty paying their mortgages due to COVID-19-related
financial hardships. At the beginning of the 117th Congress, foreclosure moratoriums were in
effect for mortgages backed by federal agencies (HUD, VA, and USDA) and Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. The federal agencies and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extended these existing
moratoriums through July 31, 2021, at which point they expired.28
Although the foreclosure moratoriums for federally backed mortgages have expired, borrowers
with mortgages backed by federal agencies or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac continue to be eligible
to request a COVID-19-related forbearance if they are experiencing a financial hardship as a
result of the pandemic. In September 2021, FHA, VA, and USDA all extended their deadlines for
requesting COVID-19-related forbearance through the end of the COVID-19 national
emergency.29 (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not set a deadline for requesting COVID-19-
related forbearance.) In addition, all of these entities announced that mortgage forbearance
periods for mortgages they back could be extended under certain circumstances.30 Each has also
implemented certain loss mitigation options to assist borrowers who are exiting COVID-19-

27 The White House, “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initiatives to Promote Housing Stability By
Supporting Vulnerable Tenants 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/.
28 Upon the expiration of the foreclosure moratoriums at the end of July, the federal agencies and Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac extended prohibitions on foreclosure-related evictions until September 30, 2021.
29 For more information on COVID-19-related mortgage forbearance and related deadlines, see Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, “Learn About Forbearance,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-housing-
assistance/help-for-homeowners/learn-about-forbearance/.
30 For a summary of these extensions, see Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Extend Your Forbearance,” at
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-housing-assistance/help-for-homeowners/extend-
forbearance/.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 5 Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

related forbearance plans.31 (Loss mitigation refers to options to avoid foreclosure, such as
repayments plans, loan modifications, or other foreclosure alternatives.)
In June 2021, the CFPB promulgated a final rule temporarily amending certain mortgage
servicing procedures under Regulation X32 in response to the pandemic and the concern that a
large number of borrowers might exit forbearance around the same time without receiving a
meaningful opportunity to be reviewed for loss mitigation.33 Under the final rule, which became
effective on August 31, 2021, 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, until January 1, 2022, the rule required servicers to
ensure that at least one of several procedural safeguards (described in the final rule) were met
before initiating foreclosure on mortgages that were at least 120 days past due.
Finally, as noted above, ARPA included funding for a new Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF).
Through the HAF, Treasury provides funding to states, territories, and tribes to use to provide
mortgage payment assistance or other related assistance to eligible homeowners who are in
danger of default, foreclosure, or displacement due to COVID-19-related hardships.34
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R46830, The Homeowner Assistance Fund in the American Rescue
Plan Act: In Brief
Housing Affordability
While housing affordability is a perennial policy issue for Congress, the house price increases and
supply constraints described earlier in the “Housing and Mortgage Market Conditions” section
have exacerbated concerns about housing affordability. Affordability challenges can affect both
owners and renters at varying levels of income; however, lower-income renter households are the
most likely to face severe housing cost burdens,35 placing them at greatest risk for housing
insecurity. Estimates vary, but they generally show that current federal housing assistance
programs reach roughly one in four eligible households.
Proposals to address housing affordability in general, and for low-income renter households in
particular, can take many forms.36 One approach is to provide additional funding for new or

31 For a summary of the types of loss mitigation options that may be available, see Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, “Exit Your Forbearance,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-housing-assistance/
help-for-homeowners/repay-forbearance/.
32 Regulation X implements certain mortgage servicing standards under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA).
33 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.
34 States, territories, and tribes have discretion in how to structure their Homeowner Assistance Fund programs, within
the parameters of ARPA and Treasury’s program guidance. For information on individual states’ Homeowner
Assistance Fund programs, see the National Council of State Housing Agencies website at https://www.ncsha.org/
homeowner-assistance-fund/.
35 See Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing 2021, pp. 32-33,
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_State_Nations_Housing_2021.pdf.
36 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.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 25 link to page 25 Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

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.
The 117th Congress has seen a variety of proposals related to housing affordability, including
some related to all of the above approaches. For example, see the following:
 There have been proposals to provide significant additional federal funding for
constructing new affordable housing, including several that have been included in
various infrastructure proposals and, ultimately, in the Build Back Better Act
reconciliation legislation (discussed further in the “Housing in the Build Back
Better Act and Other Infrastructure Proposals” section of this report).
 There have been proposals to expand existing rental assistance programs to serve
more families,37 including a proposal to create a Housing Choice Voucher
entitlement, which would allow the program to serve all eligible households. This
draft proposal was the subject of a hearing by the House Financial Services
Committee,38 and in July 2021 it was introduced as H.R. 4496, the Ending
Homelessness Act of 2021, as part of a legislative housing package announced by
House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters.39
 Proposals to encourage local governments to examine land use and other
regulatory requirements or to support related activities have included, among
others, provisions in the Build Back Better Act40 and the Yes in My Backyard Act
(H.R. 3198/S. 1614). The latter was one of several bills included in a June 2021
Senate Banking Committee hearing on selected bills related to affordable
housing.41
In addition, the President’s FY2023 budget request proposed $35 billion in new
mandatory funding for a Housing Supply Fund at HUD to support new housing
production, housing-related infrastructure improvements, and efforts to reduce local
barriers to housing development.42 The budget request also proposed expansions to the

37 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.
38 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Virtual Hearing - Universal Vouchers: Ending
Homelessness and Expanding Economic Opportunity in America, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 9, 2020,
https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=407952.
39 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. The legislative housing package also included two other bills introduced by Chairwoman Waters: the Housing
is Infrastructure Act of 2021 (H.R. 4497), which would authorize appropriations for a variety of affordable housing
programs and activities, and the Downpayment Toward Equity Act of 2021 (H.R. 4495), which would establish a down
payment assistance program for income-eligible first-time, first-generation homebuyers.
40 See the Unlocking Possibilities Program in Section 40103 of H.R. 5376 as passed by the House.
41 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Examining Bipartisan Bills to Increase
Access to Housing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 24, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/examining-
bipartisan-bills-to-increase-access-to-housing.
42 HUD FY2023 Budget Justifications, Housing Supply Fund (Mandatory Request), https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/
Congressional Research Service

19

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit43 and $5 billion in new mandatory funding for
Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund to support
financing for affordable housing development.44
Homelessness
Housing affordability challenges and housing instability arising from the COVID-19 pandemic
have increased concerns that more people may be at risk of homelessness.45 Data collection
during the pandemic has been limited, and pandemic-related interventions may have prevented
homelessness in some cases, so there is not yet a full picture of changes in the number of people
experiencing homelessness. HUD directs a point-in-time (PIT) count of the number of people
experiencing homelessness on one day during the last week of January each year. However, the
2021 PIT count included only people living in shelter (emergency shelter and transitional
housing) and not those who were unsheltered (living on the street or other places not meant for
human habitation); the number of people living in shelter declined by 8% from January 2020 to
January 2021.46
Between the CARES Act and ARPA, Congress appropriated nearly $15 billion for HUD
programs to assist people experiencing homelessness. The CARES Act provided $4 billion for the
Emergency Solutions Grants program to provide emergency and non-congregate shelter
accommodations as well as short-term rental assistance to assist people immediately at risk of
losing their housing. ARPA provided $5 billion that will fund approximately 70,000 emergency
housing vouchers through the Section 8 program to assist people experiencing homelessness.47
Further, it appropriated an additional $5 billion for the HOME program, which communities are
to use for various activities that primarily assist people who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness, including development of affordable housing, rental assistance, and supportive
services.48
In the 117th Congress, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Housing,
Community Development, and Insurance held a hearing about addressing homelessness in
February 2022, “Housing America: Addressing Challenges in Serving People Experiencing
Homelessness,” during which Members cited a number of related bills that have been proposed in
the 117th Congress.49 In addition, on June 24, 2021, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing

CFO/documents/2023_CJ_Program_CC3_Housing_Supply_Fund.pdf.
43 Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue Proposals, pp.
20-21, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2023.pdf.
44 Department of the Treasury FY2023 Budget Justifications, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, pp.
10-11, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/12-CDFI-FY-2023-CJ.pdf.
45 For example, see Riordan Frost, Pre-Pandemic Trends Offer Insight into Post Pandemic Homelessness, Joint Center
for Housing Studies, March 30, 2021, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/pre-pandemic-trends-offer-insight-post-
pandemic-homelessness.
46 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The 2021 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to
Congress, January 2022, p. 8, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2021-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.
47 More information about the emergency housing vouchers is available on HUD’s website, https://www.hud.gov/ehv.
48 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Requirements for the Use of Funds in the HOME-
American Rescue Plan Program, September 13, 2021, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/2021-
10cpdn.pdf.
49 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and
Insurance, Housing America: Addressing Challenges in Serving People Experiencing Homelessness, 117th Cong., 2nd
sess., February 2, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 34 Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

on bills that would address affordable housing, including S. 1991, the Family Stability and
Opportunity Vouchers Act of 2021, which would provide Section 8 vouchers for families with
children who are homeless or unstably housed.50
Housing in the Build Back Better Act and Other Infrastructure
Proposals
The topic of infrastructure investments has been prominent during the 117th Congress. In Spring
2021, the Biden Administration released its infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan,
which contained a number of proposals to invest additional resources in housing.51
Two legislative initiatives were developed in response to President Biden’s American Jobs Plan
infrastructure investment proposal. The first package—the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA, P.L. 117-58)—was enacted in November 2021. It included new spending for a variety of
transportation, energy, and water programs, among others, including funding to replace lead water
service lines and funding for hazard mitigation (the latter of which is discussed further in the
“Housing and Climate Impacts” section of this report). It did not include funding specifically for
affordable housing programs or initiatives, however.
The second legislative package—the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376)—was developed
pursuant to reconciliation directives included in S.Con.Res. 14, the Concurrent Budget Resolution
for FY2022.52 As passed by the House in November 2021, the Financial Services Committee title
of the bill (Title IV) included about $157 billion in new mandatory spending over 10 years for
programs and activities within the committee’s jurisdiction, primarily a range of new and existing
affordable housing programs.53 Most of the housing investments that were proposed in the
Administration’s American Jobs Plan are included in the bill in some form, as are other housing-
related investments. Among other things, Title IV of the House-passed bill would include funding
to
 produce, preserve, or rehabilitate affordable housing, including funding for
programs such as the Housing Trust Fund, Section 202, and Section 811
programs;
 increase funding for existing federally assisted affordable housing, including
public housing, project-based Section 8 multifamily housing, and rural rental
housing programs;
 provide additional rental assistance through funding for new Section 8 vouchers;

50 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Examining Bipartisan Bills to Increase
Access to Housing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 24, 2021.
51 See The White House, “Fact Sheet: The 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 The White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan Will Produce,
Preserve, and Retrofit More Than 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/.
52 For more information on S.Con.Res. 14, see CRS Report R46893, S.Con.Res. 14: The Budget Resolution for FY2022.
53 This amount compares to about $300 billion in new spending that was included in the version of the bill reported out
of committee. For more information on the committee-passed bill, see U.S. House Committee on Financial Services,
“Committee Passes Build Back Better Agenda to Provide Long-Overdue Investments in Housing Resources,” press
release, September 14, 2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408325.
Congressional Research Service

21

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

 assist local communities with planning and implementing local housing and
community development strategies; and
 provide assistance for homebuyers, including funding for a new down payment
assistance program for first-time, first generation homebuyers.
In addition, the Ways and Means Committee title of the bill (Title XIII) includes certain
additional tax-related housing provisions; namely, changes to the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit and the inclusion of the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act (NHIA). The NHIA would
provide tax credits to support the development or rehabilitation of single-family homes in certain
distressed neighborhoods. (For more information on the NHIA, see CRS In Focus IF11884,
Neighborhood Homes Investment Act: Overview and Policy Considerations.) As of the cover date
of this report, the Senate had not considered the Build Back Better Act.
Earlier in the 117th Congress, both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate
Banking Committee held hearings related to housing as infrastructure.54 In July 2021, House
Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters introduced the Housing is
Infrastructure Act of 2021 (H.R. 4497) as part of her legislative housing package.55 The Housing
is Infrastructure Act would authorize hundreds of billions of dollars in new funding for various
affordable housing programs and activities. Many of the activities included in that bill, as well as
certain other parts of the Chairwoman’s legislative housing package, were included in the House-
passed version of the Build Back Better Act in some form.
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R46916, FY2022 Reconciliation: Title IV, House Financial Services
Committee Provisions
 CRS Report R46960, Tax Provisions in the Build Back Better Act: Rules
Committee Print 117-18
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
Reauthorization
The 117th Congress has been considering legislation to reauthorize the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA, P.L. 104-330). NAHASDA

54 These 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 America: Oversight of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 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 Communities: Expanding Opportunity Through Infrastructure
Investments, 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.
55 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 116th Congress and was ordered reported by the House
Financial Services Committee (H.R. 5187). Additionally in the 116th Congress, a set of “additional infrastructure
investments” was included in Title V of the FY2021 Transportation-HUD appropriations legislation that passed the
House (H.R. 7616, as incorporated into H.R. 7617), although they were not included in the final FY2021 full-year
appropriations package.
Congressional Research Service

22

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

authorizes the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), through which HUD provides formula
funding to federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages that can be used for a range of
affordable housing activities.56 As amended, it also authorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing
Block Grant (NHHBG), which provides funding for affordable housing activities that benefit
Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.
The most recent authorization for most NAHASDA programs expired at the end of FY2013,
although Congress has continued to fund NAHASDA programs in annual appropriations laws.57
NAHASDA reauthorization legislation has been introduced and considered to varying degrees in
every Congress since the 113th, but none has ultimately been enacted. While both tribes and
Congress have been generally supportive of NAHASDA, there is sometimes disagreement over
specific provisions or policy proposals that have been included in reauthorization bills.
In the 117th Congress, different NAHASDA reauthorization bills have been introduced in the
House and the Senate. In September 2021, the House Financial Services Committee ordered to be
reported H.R. 5195, which would reauthorize the IHBG, the NHHBG, and certain other Native
American housing programs (namely, HUD’s Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
and Section 184A Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Program) through FY2026.58 In
February 2022, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs ordered to be reported S. 2264, which
would reauthorize the IHBG, the NHHBG, and the Section 184 and Section 184A programs
through FY2032.59 Both bills also contain a range of other provisions that would make changes to
NAHASDA and otherwise address housing assistance for Indian tribes in various ways.
Fair Housing
The evolving administrative and judicial interpretations of certain requirements of the Fair
Housing Act have been of ongoing interest to Congress.60 Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act
“to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.”61
Congress passed the act in 1968 after years of private and government-sanctioned housing
discrimination that resulted in racially segregated neighborhoods and unequal access to housing.62

56 NAHASDA also authorizes the Title VI loan guarantee program, through which HUD provides loan guarantees to
increase tribes’ access to financing for affordable housing activities.
57 The NHHBG has not been reauthorized since its original authorization expired in FY2005, although it has generally
continued to receive funding in appropriations acts.
58 U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, “Committee Passes Legislation to Expedite Emergency Rental
Assistance and Provide Protections for Descendants of Black Native American Freedmen,” press release, September
14, 2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408326.
59 U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, “Schatz, Murkowski Lead Committee Passage of Bipartisan Bill to
Advance Native American Housing Programs,” press release, February 17, 2022, https://www.indian.senate.gov/news/
press-release/schatz-murkowski-lead-committee-passage-bipartisan-bill-advance-native-american.
60 Past Congresses have held hearings and considered legislative provisions related to HUD actions on the Fair Housing
Act and other fair housing issues. 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). No such provision was included in the
enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
61 42 U.S.C. §3601. The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§3601-3631) was originally enacted as Title VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-284).
62 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 Thomas J. Sugrue, ‘From Jim Crow to Fair Housing,’ in The Fight for Fair
Congressional Research Service

23

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

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.63
The Fair Housing Act bars intentional discrimination, through which plaintiffs allege that a
defendant made a housing decision based on “a discriminatory intent or motive.”64 In addition,
prior to 2005, HUD and courts had historically recognized that the act also bars disparate impact
(also referred to as discriminatory effects) discrimination—“facially neutral [housing]
decision[s]” that have “a disproportionately adverse effect on [a protected class] and [are]
otherwise unjustified by a legitimate rationale.”65 However, the Supreme Court, in the 2005
decision Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi66 (a case involving the federal Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 [ADEA]), indirectly called into question past decisions that had held
that disparate impact claims are cognizable (i.e., viable) under the Fair Housing Act.
In Smith, the Court held that the ADEA supports disparate impact claims in part because the law
expressly prohibits actions that “adversely affect” a protected class.67 Due to the absence of
similar statutory language in the Fair Housing Act, various court decisions following Smith raised
questions about whether the act supports disparate impact claims, and if it does, the test courts
should apply to evaluate them.68
The Supreme Court settled some of this uncertainty in a 2015 opinion, holding that disparate
impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, while providing guidance to HUD and
lower courts regarding how claims should be assessed.69 During the Obama, Trump, and Biden
Administrations, HUD issued differing regulations to implement disparate impact liability post-
Smith, which sparked litigation.70

Housing: Causes, Consequences, and Future Implications of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, ed. Gregory D. Squires (New
York: Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, 2018), pp. 14-27.
63 P.L. 104-76 (authorizing certain housing for older persons); P.L. 100-430 (adding protections for the disabled and
families with children).
64 Texas Dept. of Hous. & Cmnty Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2513 (2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
65 Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290 (7th Cir. 1977). There are two types of
disparate impact discrimination: “The first occurs when that decision has a greater adverse impact on one [protected]
group than on another. The 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 groups.” Ibid.
66 544 U.S. 228 (2005).
67 Ibid. at 235-38.
68 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). The 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). The Supreme Court also granted
certiorari in two cases to address the question of whether disparate impact claims were cognizable under the Fair
Housing Act, which signaled to many that the Court was likely to reverse the prevailing understanding that the act bars
disparate impact discrimination. Twp. 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. Twp. 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). See also Joshua Thompson and Ralph Kasarda, Symposium: Just give the Court a
Chance, SCOTUSblog (January 6, 2015), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/symposium-just-give-the-court-a-
chance/.
69 Texas Dept. of Hous. & Cmnty Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2513 (2015).
70 See, for example, Mass. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. United States HUD, 496 F. Supp. 3d 600, 603 (D. Mass. 2020)
Congressional Research Service

24

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

In addition to prohibiting discrimination, the Fair Housing Act imposes a broad mandate on HUD
and all 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].”71 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.
For more information on the Fair Housing Act in general, see the following:
 CRS Report 95-710, The Fair Housing Act (FHA): A Legal Overview
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
What AFFH means is not defined in statute, and various court decisions regarding HUD’s
obligations under the mandate have concluded that it means more than refraining from
discrimination.72 A 1987 federal appellate court decision examined the Fair Housing Act’s
legislative history and concluded 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.”73
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.74
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 seven years over the
span of 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 replaced the Trump Administration rule as of July 31, 2021.
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 racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”75
States and localities receiving HUD formula grant funding, as well as Public Housing Authorities
(PHAs), were required to assess the needs of their communities and ways in which they could

(government appeal voluntarily dismissed, Mass. Fair Housing Ctr. v. HUD, No 21-1003 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2021)); Am.
Ins. Assoc. v. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev., 74 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (vacated and remanded by Am. Ins.
Assoc. v. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev. No. 14-5321, September 23, 2015 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam)).
71 42 U.S.C. §3608(d).
72 See, for example, NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d 149, 155 (1987) (“Finally, every court that has considered the question
has held or stated that Title 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).
73 NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d at 155.
74 Ibid.
75 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.
Congressional Research Service

25

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

improve access to housing. They were also required to submit a report to HUD, called 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.76 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 rationally related to promoting any attribute or attributes of
fair housing.”77 States and localities were to certify that they satisfied the AFFH requirement as
part of their consolidated plans.78 The rule did not apply to PHAs and took effect on September 8,
2020.
On January 26, 2021, President Biden issued a Presidential Memorandum to HUD, directing the
agency to “take all 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.”79
On June 10, 2021, HUD published an interim final rule that repealed the Trump Administration
rule and reinstated certain aspects of the 2015 AFFH rule, including the definition of AFFH as
well as grantee certification requirements.80 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.81 The interim final rule became effective on July 31,
2021.
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R44557, The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and
Activities
Disparate Impact Discrimination
Amidst the growing uncertainty regarding disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing
Act following the Supreme Court’s Smith opinion discussed above,82 HUD, for the first time in
February 2013 during the Obama Administration, issued regulations to “formalize HUD’s long-
held interpretation of the availability of ‘discriminatory effects’ liability under the Fair Housing

76 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.
77 85 Federal Register 47905.
78 85 Federal Register 47909.
79 The 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/.
80 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.
81 Ibid. at 30785. HUD had not issued a proposed rule as of the cover date of this report.
82 See supra n. 66-67 and surrounding text.
Congressional Research Service

26

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Act and to provide nationwide consistency in the application of that form of liability.”83 In 2014,
a federal district court briefly vacated the 2013 disparate impact rule after holding that disparate
impact claims are not cognizable under the Fair Housing Act and that HUD had exceeded its
statutory authority in issuing the rule.84 About a year later, a federal appellate court vacated the
district court’s decision and remanded proceedings for reconsideration in accordance with the
Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v.
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.85 In Inclusive Communities, the Supreme Court held that
disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.86 The Court’s decision did not
expressly adopt the disparate impact test implemented by HUD’s 2013 rule; rather, the Court
adopted a three-step burden-shifting test using language similar, but not identical, to the 2013 rule
and outlined a number of limiting factors that lower courts and HUD should apply when
assessing disparate impact claims.87
In September 2020, near the end of the Trump Administration, HUD issued a final rule intended
“to better reflect the Supreme Court’s 2015 [Inclusive Communities] ruling.”88 The 2020 rule
would have significantly altered the 2013 rule by, among other things, imposing new pleading
requirements on plaintiffs to maintain a prima facie disparate impact claim and establishing new
defenses that a defendant could use to rebut disparate impact claims. Shortly after the rule’s
issuance, housing advocates filed a law suit in federal district court alleging that the 2020 rule
should be set aside because it was an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law in violation
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).89 Before the 2020 rule went into effect, the district
court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining HUD from implementing and enforcing the 2020
rule, which had the effect of keeping the 2013 rule in place.90
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
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.”91 In the court’s
view, these alterations “weaken[ed], for housing discrimination victims and fair housing
organizations, disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act.”92 HUD argued that these
changes were justified because they brought the rule into alignment with Inclusive Communities
and “provide[d] better clarity to the public.”93 The court concluded that these major changes,

83 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.
84 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).
85 Am. Ins. Assoc. v. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev. No. 14-5321, September 23, 2015 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam).
86 576 U.S. 519 (2015).
87 Ibid. at 531-45.
88 Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact
Standard,” 85 Federal Register 60288, September 24, 2020, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/24/
2020-19887/huds-implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-disparate-impact-standard.
89 Mass. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. United States HUD, 496 F. Supp. 3d 600, 603 (D. Mass. 2020).
90 Ibid. at 612.
91 Ibid. at 606-608.
92 Ibid. at 607.
93 Ibid. at 610.
Congressional Research Service

27

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

“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.”94 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.”95
On January 26, 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum directing HUD to “take all steps
necessary to examine the effects of the [2020 rule].”96 HUD responded to this presidential
directive by voluntarily dismissing its appeal of the federal district court’s injunction97 and
proposing a regulation that would recodify the 2013 rule and effectively rescind the 2020 rule.98
In the proposed rule issued on June 25, 2021, HUD expressed its belief “that the practical effect
of the 2020 Rule’s amendments [wa]s to severely limit HUD’s and plaintiffs’ use of the
discriminatory effects framework in ways that substantially diminish that frameworks’
effectiveness in accomplishing the purposes that Inclusive Communities articulated.”99 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.”100 As a consequence, parties
who previously filed suits challenging the 2013 rule as inconsistent with Inclusive Communities
could continue the lawsuits because the 2013 rule has been reinstated.101
For more information, see the following:
 CRS Report R44203, Disparate Impact Claims Under the Fair Housing Act
Racial Disparities in Housing
Despite the Fair Housing Act and other efforts, long-standing racial disparities in housing
outcomes persist. For many housing indicators, the discrepancy is especially pronounced between

94 Ibid. at 611.
95 Ibid.
96 The 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/.
97 Mass. Fair Housing Ctr. v. HUD, No 21-1003 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2021).
98 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.
99 Ibid. at 33594.
100 Ibid.
101 See, generally, 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

28

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Black individuals and White individuals, including in homeownership rates,102 renter cost
burdens,103 and, most recently, the housing-related impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.104
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 All: Achieving Racial Equity Through Fair Access to Housing
and Financial Services.”105 The committee’s hearing memorandum included descriptions of
several introduced or draft bills that would address specific issues related to housing and race, and
some of these bills have since received additional consideration. 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.106 The Biden Administration,
including HUD, has also focused attention on promoting equity in federal programs.107
One issue that has received particular attention is possible racial disparities in home appraisals. In
April 2021, the House Financial Services Committee ordered to be reported the Real Estate
Valuation Fairness and Improvement Act of 2021 (H.R. 2553), one of the bills included in the
committee’s March 2021 hearing, which would establish an interagency task force to examine
real estate valuation standards and would take actions to promote diversity in the appraisal
profession. In June 2021, the Biden Administration released a fact sheet highlighting a number of
actions it has taken or proposed that it states will help address racial disparities in housing,
including announcing an interagency task force to address inequities in home appraisals led by
HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge. 108 That task force, known as the Interagency Task Force on
Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE), released a report in March 2022 outlining steps
that agencies would take to address appraisal bias.109 The Senate Banking Committee and House
Financial Services Committee held hearings on the topic shortly thereafter.110 Additionally, in

102 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, Table 16, https://www.census.gov/
housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html.
103 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 Table W-1,
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2020.
104 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 pandemic, March 2021, p. 8, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/
cfpb_Housing_insecurity_and_the_COVID-19_pandemic.pdf.
105 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.
106 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Separate and Unequal: The Legacy of
Racial Discrimination 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.
107 For more on HUD’s equity-related efforts, see https://www.hud.gov/equity.
108 The 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/.
109 Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity, Action Plan to Advance Property Appraisal
and Valuation Equity: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap by Addressing Mis-valuations for Families and Communities of
Color, March 2022, https://pave.hud.gov/sites/pave.hud.gov/files/documents/PAVEActionPlan.pdf. The task force
website is at https://pave.hud.gov/.
110 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Strengthening Oversight and Equity in
Congressional Research Service

29

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

February 2022, House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters sent a letter to
HUD, regulatory agencies, and appraiser professional organizations indicating that her committee
would be taking actions, including legislation, to address racial discrimination in appraisals.111
Housing and Climate Impacts
Many communities across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change, with
extreme weather and climate-related events expected to become more frequent and more intense
in a warmer world.112 Climate-related risks to the housing stock include the impacts of flooding
and coastal erosion,113 sea level rise,114 high-intensity rainfall events,115 higher urban
temperatures,116 and increased wildfire activity from extreme heat events combined with
drought.117 This vulnerability to the effects of climate change has highlighted the importance of
improving the resilience of the nation’s housing stock and mitigating housing’s climate-related
impacts through increased energy efficiency or other measures.118
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,119

the Appraisal Process, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., March 24, 2022, https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/strengthening-
oversight-and-equity-in-the-appraisal-process and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Devalued,
Denied, and Disrespected: How Home Appraisal Bias and Discrimination Are Hurting Homeowners and Communities
of Color, 117th Cong., March 29, 2022, https://financialservices.house.gov/events/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=409150.
111 House Committee on Financial Services, “Waters Calls on Regulators and Industry to Hold Appraisers Accountable
and Announces Plans for Legislation,” press release, February 22, 2022, https://financialservices.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409146. Draft legislation was discussed at the March 2022 House Financial
Services Committee hearing described in the previous footnote.
112 D.R. Reidmiller, C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling et al., Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth
National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Volume II, Washington, DC, November 23,
2018, pp. 1-47, https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ (hereinafter, Fourth National Climate Assessment).
113 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) February 2022 report estimates that 15.4 million housing
units in the United States are in the 100-year floodplain, or the 1%-annual-chance floodplain, which is defined as the
area with a 1% or greater risk of flooding every year. See H.-P. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, and E.S. Poloczanska et al.,
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, February 28, 2022,
pp. 6-37, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (hereinafter, “IPCC Adaptation”).
114 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
Climate Assessment, pp. 330, 335, and 338.
115 IPCC Adaptation, p. 14-47.
116 IPCC Adaptation, p. 6-24 and pp. 14-47 - 14-48.
117 The number of homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI)—the area where houses are in or adjacent to wildland
vegetation and which has the highest wildfire risk—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. According to the IPCC February 2022 report, 29 million people in the United
States live in areas with significant wildfire risk, and 12 million of these are socially vulnerable. See IPCC Adaptation,
p. 14-27.
118 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing 2021, Cambridge, MA,
June 16, 2021, p. 6 and pp. 34-35, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/
Harvard_JCHS_State_Nations_Housing_2021.pdf.
119 See, for example, Laura A. Bakkensen and Lint Barrage, Flood Risk Belief Heterogeneity and Coastal Home Price
Dynamic: Going Under Water? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23854, Cambridge, MA,
February 2021, pp. 8-10, https://www.nber.org/papers/w23854.
Congressional Research Service

30

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

though there are already indications of reductions in property prices in homes subject to recurring
flooding.120 For example, a nationwide evaluation of the effect of floodplain location on property
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 million floodplain homes in the United States that are overvalued by a total of $34
billion.121 The Mortgage Bankers Association’s Research Institute for Housing America published
a report on the impact of climate change on housing and housing finance in which it noted that, in
addition to increasing residential property damage, climate change may increase mortgage default
and mortgage prepayment risk, trigger adverse selection in the types of loans that are sold to the
government-sponsored enterprises, and increase the volatility of house prices.122
FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 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.123 As climate impacts grow over time, the mortgages on such properties may become
riskier.124 In January 2021, FHFA issued a request for input on climate change and natural disaster
risk to the housing finance system.125 FHFA released a statement in December 2021
acknowledging that climate change poses a serious threat to the U.S. housing finance system, and
announced that it is also enhancing its agency-wide monitoring and supervision of climate change
issues.126
The Financial Stability Oversight Council (of which the FHFA Director is a member) identified
climate change as an emerging and increasing threat to U.S. financial stability, noting that the
primary exposure of the government-sponsored enterprises to risk from climate change arises
from credit losses in the mortgage market. However, they may be subject to additional exposures,
and FHFA is in the process of identifying and measuring climate-related risks to its regulated
entities. FHFA is beginning with flood risk, but plans to also examine the impacts of other perils,
such as wind damage, wildfires, and droughts.127

120 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.
121 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.
122 Sean Becketti, The Impact of Climate Change on Housing and Housing Finance, Research Institute for Housing
America, September 23, 2021, pp. 16-19, 22847_Research_RIHA_September_2021_Report_WB.pdf.
123 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.
124 Lael Brainard, Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, “Financial Stability Implications of Climate
Change,” speech at “Transform Tomorrow Today,” Ceres 2021 Conference, Boston, MA, March 23, 2021,
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20210323a.htm.
125 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.
126 Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Acting Director Sandra L. Thompson’s Statement on Climate Change,”
press release, December 27, 201, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Acting-Director-Sandra-L-
Thompsons-Statement-on-Climate-Change.aspx.
127 Financial Stability Oversight Council, Report on Climate-Related Financial Risk 2021, Washington, DC, October
Congressional Research Service

31

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Both Congress and the White House have introduced initiatives to address climate risks to
housing. For example, in February 2021, Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 directed the head of each
government agency to submit a draft action plan within 120 days of the E.O. that describes steps
the agency can take with regard to its facilities and operations to bolster adaptation and increase
resilience to the impacts of climate change.128 In May 2021, E.O. 14030 directed federal agencies
to develop, within 120 days, a comprehensive government-wide climate-risk strategy to identify
and disclose climate-related financial risk to government programs, assets, and liabilities.129 In
response, HUD published its Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan in November 2021, in
which it identified the potential vulnerability of the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund and
General Insurance and Special Risk Insurance Fund to increased defaults and losses as a specific
threat to HUD programs.130
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), enacted in November 2021,
appropriated significant new funding for hazard mitigation, which could be used by communities
to reduce risks associated with climate change. This includes $500 million for the STORM Act
State Revolving Loan Program, $1 billion for the Building Resilient Communities and
Infrastructure grant program, and $3.5 billion for the Flood Mitigation Assistance grant
program.131 Other legislation introduced during the 117th Congress would also provide funding for
various types of climate resilience activities. For example, the Housing is Infrastructure Act of
2021 (H.R. 4497) would authorize funding for various affordable housing programs and activities
and require certain amounts of funding to be used for activities related to climate and natural
disaster resilience. The Build Back Better Act, as passed by the House, includes funding for
energy and water efficiency or climate resilience improvements for federally assisted multifamily
housing.
In addition, a number of committees have held hearings on housing and climate change during the
117th Congress, including the House Financial Services Committee,132 the House Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis,133 and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs.134

21, 2021, pp. 58-59, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC-Climate-Report.pdf.
128 Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86(19) Federal Register 7625,
February 1, 2021.
129 Executive Order 14030, “Climate-Related Financial Risk,” 86(99) Federal Register 27967-27971, May 20, 2021.
130 Department of Housing and Urban Development, Climate Action Plan, Washington, DC, November 2021, p. 11,
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/HUD-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf.
131 For additional information on these mitigation programs, see CRS Report R46989, FEMA Hazard Mitigation: A
First Step Toward Climate Adaptation.
132 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and
Insurance, Built to Last: Examining Housing Resilience in the Face of Climate Change, 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 4,
2021, https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=407747; and 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, p. https://financialservices.house.gov/events/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=407532.
133 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Climate Crisis, Building Climate Resilient Communities, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., June 11, 2021, https://climatecrisis.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/building-climate-resilient-
communities.
134 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 21st Century Communities: Capitalizing
on Opportunities in the Clean Energy Economy, 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 22, 2021, pp.
https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/21st-century-communities_capitalizing-on-opportunities-in-the-clean-energy-
economy; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 21st Century Communities:
Climate Change, Resilience, and Reinsurance, 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 20, 2021, pp.
https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/21st-century-communities_climate-change-resilience-and-reinsurance.
Congressional Research Service

32

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

Housing and Disaster Response and Recovery
The extent to which federal policies adequately and effectively address the housing needs of
disaster survivors following the range of disasters that may 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).135 Additionally, Congress may appropriate further relief and
recovery funding for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR)
program.
FEMA IHP Housing Assistance
IHP Housing Assistance for Economically Destructive Disasters
Stafford Act declarations tend to support response and recovery following natural disasters that
result in physical damages (e.g., hurricanes). Although uncommon, Presidents have issued
declarations for incidents that do not result in physical damages, such as public health incidents
(e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic).
Disasters can 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,136 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.137 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 the President to provide temporary mortgage or rental payments to or on behalf of
individuals and families meeting certain criteria.138 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.139
Congress intended DMA2K to control the federal cost of disaster assistance; however, the
specific justification for removing the provision of mortgage and rental payments from the

135 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_iappg-
1.1.pdf (hereinafter FEMA, IAPPG).
136 42 U.S.C. §5174(c)(1)(A).
137 42 U.S.C. §5174(b)(1); see also FEMA, IAPPG, pp. 80-81.
138 The 2001 version of Stafford Act Section 408(b)—Temporary Mortgage and Rental Payments—stated “The
President is authorized to provide assistance on a temporary basis in the form of mortgage or rental payments to or on
behalf of individuals and families who, as a result of financial hardship caused by a major disaster, have received
written notice of dispossession or eviction from a residence by reason of a foreclosure of any mortgage or lien,
cancellation of any contract of sale, or termination of any lease, entered into prior to such disaster. Such assistance shall
be provided for the duration of the period of financial hardship but not to exceed 18 months [emphasis added].”
139 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.
Congressional Research Service

33

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

amended version of the Stafford Act is not specified in the committee reports on the bill.140
During a Senate hearing in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector
General (DHS OIG) attributed Congress’s elimination of mortgage and rental payments to lack of
program use and implementation challenges.141 Despite these challenges, the DHS OIG stated
that the “effects of the 9/11 terrorist attack ... demonstrated genuine need for programs such as
this. Therefore, we have recommended ... that Congress consider reinstating the program under
the Stafford Act.”142 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
“safe, sanitary, or functional,” not to return the home to its pre-disaster condition or to improve
it.143 Still, repairs may include hazard mitigation measures to make the housing more resilient.144
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 “allow eligible
homeowners ... [to] repair or rebuild stronger, more durable homes.”145
FEMA’s guidance details the types of mitigation measures that are available under the IHP.146 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,147 and the amount of financial assistance for

140 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation 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.
141 During the 108th Congress, then DHS Deputy Inspector General, Richard “Rick” L. Skinner, included in his
statement, in the “Individual Assistance Review” section, 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, only $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 Mitigation
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 September 11, 2001, 108th
Cong., 1st sess., September 24, 2003, S.Hrg. 108-364, p. 253, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
108shrg92386/pdf/CHRG-108shrg92386.pdf (hereinafter “U.S. Congress, Review of the GAO Report on FEMA’s
Activities After September 11, 2001”).
142 U.S. Congress, Review of the GAO Report on FEMA’s Activities After September 11, 2001, pp. 253-254 (Statement
of Rick Skinner, DHS Deputy IG).
143 FEMA, IAPPG, p. 85.
144 FEMA, IAPPG, p. 86.
145 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””).
146 FEMA, “Hazard Mitigation Under the IHP.”
147 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.
Congressional Research Service

34

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

housing is capped in statute.148 Additionally, 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.149
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.
IHP Policy Change to Ownership Documentation Requirements to Advance
Equity
On September 2, 2021, FEMA released a memorandum amending FEMA’s Individual Assistance
program guidance in accordance with the Biden Administration and FEMA’s equity initiatives.150
One significant policy change to the IHP is that FEMA now accepts expanded forms of
documentation to verify an applicant’s occupancy and ownership, which is required before
FEMA can provide certain types of IHP assistance.151 To that end, FEMA will accept a “written
self-declarative statement ... from applicants whose pre-disaster residence was passed down via
heirship.”152 In this context, FEMA defines heirship as “the legal right to receive real and personal
property under state law upon the death of an ancestor or next of kin.”153
Prior to this policy change, there were reports that some African American families in the
Southern United States were prevented from receiving assistance for which they may have
otherwise been eligible because they own property passed down by heirship and lack the formal
or traditional documentation FEMA previously would accept to prove ownership (e.g., deed or
deed of trust to the property).154 Although other property-related challenges may persist for some
people who own property passed down by heirship (without formal or traditional documentation

148 42 U.S.C. §5174(h)(1); and FEMA, IAPPG, pp. 42, 85. For FY2022, the maximum amount of financial assistance
for housing is $37,900; see DHS/FEMA, “Notice of Maximum Amount of Assistance Under the Individuals and
Households Program,” 86 Federal Register 63046, November 15, 2021, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2021-11-15/pdf/2021-24755.pdf.
149 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 updated September 26, 2021,
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation/property-owners.
150 Memorandum from Keith Turi, Assistant Administrator of the FEMA Recovery Directorate, to FEMA Regional
Administrators, “Amendment to FP 104-009-03, Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide, Version 1.1,”
September 2, 2021, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-policy-amendments-memo.pdf
(hereinafter, “Memorandum from Keith Turi”); Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” 86 Federal Register 7009-7013, January 25, 2021,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021-01753.pdf; FEMA, “FEMA Makes Changes to
Individual Assistance Policies to Advance Equity for Disaster Survivors,” release HQ-21-193, September 2, 2021,
https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210902/fema-makes-changes-individual-assistance-policies-advance-equity-
disaster (hereinafter “FEMA, “Changes to Advance Equity””); and FEMA, “2022–2026 FEMA Strategic Plan Building
the FEMA our Nation Needs and Deserves,” https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2022-2026-
strategic-plan.pdf (hereinafter “FEMA, “2022-2026 Strategic Plan””).
151 42 U.S.C. §5174(c)(2)(A)(i) and (c)(3)(A); FEMA, IAPPG, pp. 51-55.
152 Memorandum from Keith Turi, pp. 8-9.
153 Memorandum from Keith Turi, p. 9, footnote 3.
154 Hannah Dreier and Andrew Ba Tran, “The real damage: Why FEMA is denying disaster aid to Black families that
have lived for generations in the Deep South,” Washington Post, July 11, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/
nation/2021/07/11/fema-black-owned-property/ (hereinafter, “Hannah Dreier, “The real damage””).
Congressional Research Service

35

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

of ownership),155 such individuals may now be able to receive disaster assistance from FEMA.156
Upon issuing the updated guidance, FEMA stated that the change was made to “reduce barriers to
access experienced by underserved populations.”157
CDBG-DR
Following some disasters, Congress has provided Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding in supplemental 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 formally
authorized program, meaning the rules that govern the funding use and oversight vary with HUD
guidance accompanying each allocation.
The Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2021 (H.R. 4707/S. 2471), introduced in the 117th
Congress, would authorize CDBG-DR as a standing program and codify a CDBG-DR program
structure. (In the 116th Congress, a substantially similar bill, H.R. 3702, was passed by the
House.) On December 15, 2021, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs conducted a hearing to consider authorization of CDBG-DR as a standing program.158
Another bill introduced in the 117th Congress, H.R. 2809, the Natural Disaster Recovery Program
Act of 2021, would establish a separate program to address unmet needs of states and tribal
entities in disaster recovery.
In addition to the hearing on CDBG-DR authorization, the U.S. House Committee on Financial
Services has conducted hearings on various aspects of CDBG-DR grant administration, in its
oversight role, during the 117th Congress. On January 19, 2022, the House Financial Services
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, held a hearing to examine findings by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office159 regarding the distribution of CDBG-DR funds for
vulnerable populations.160 On July 15, 2021, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

155 See Conner Bailey et al., “Heirs’ Property and Persistent Poverty among African Americans in the Southeastern
United States,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, “Heirs’ Property,” p. 17; see
also Skipper G. StipeMaas, “The Georgia Heirs Property Law Center, Inc.: Addressing Tangled Title and Economic
Security for Georgians,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, “Heirs’ Property,”
p. 104. In this study, it was concluded that “[h]ome and land ownership should provide cultural, environmental,
economic, and political stability from which to operate. Heirs property creates instability, reducing people’s ability to
manage their homes and land. Consequently, people lose their ability to grow wealth, stabilize communities and tax
bases, and sustainably manage our farms, forests, and wetlands.”
156 Conner Bailey et al., “Heirs’ Property and Persistent Poverty among African Americans in the Southeastern United
States,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, “Heirs’ Property,” p. 17. This study
stated in its conclusions that “the clouded nature of title to heirs’ property means that such property has no collateral
value. The land cannot be used as collateral for a mortgage to build a home or start a business or for other productive
use. The cumulative effect of $6.6 billion in clouded title represents a significant impediment on the economic
prospects of African Americans in the Black Belt South”, but also noted that “FEMA ... [has] identified mechanisms to
give heirs’ property owners access to government program benefits.”
157 FEMA, “Changes to Advance Equity”; see also FEMA, “2022-2026 Strategic Plan,” p. 11 (see “Equity in Action”
text box).
158 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Disaster Recovery Assistance -
Authorization of the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery Program, 117th Cong., December 15,
2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/disaster-recovery-assistance_-authorization-of-the-community-
development-block-grant—disaster-recovery-program.
159 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Recovery: Better Data Are Needed to Ensure Equitable Delivery
of HUD Block Grant Funds to Vulnerable Populations , GAO-22-105548, January 19, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-22-105548.
160 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Ensuring
Congressional Research Service

36

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

of the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to examine the management and
distribution of CDBG-DR and CDBG Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funds in Texas, as well as broader
issues related to targeting of funds and HUD’s monitoring of such activities.161
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
CFPB Revisions to the Qualified Mortgage Rule
The Dodd-Frank Wall 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.162 The CFPB released a final
rule implementing these ability-to-repay (ATR) requirements in January 2013; the rule took effect
in January 2014.163
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 2013.164 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.165 Among other
things, it replaced a limit on the allowable 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.166 The CFPB also issued a
new “seasoned QM” rule.167 Under this rule, certain non-QM mortgages could become QMs or

Equitable Delivery of Disaster Benefits to Vulnerable Communities and Peoples: An Examination of GAO’s Findings
of the CDBG Program, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., January 19, 2022, https://financialservices.house.gov/events/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=408704.
161 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, CDBG
Disaster Recovery: States, Cities, and Denials of Funding, 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 15, 2021,
https://financialservices.house.gov/events/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=408106.
162 15 U.S.C. §1640
163 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Under the Truth in
Lending Act (Regulation Z),” 78 Federal Register 6408-6620, January 30, 2013.
164 For amendments to the ATR/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/.
165 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition Under the Truth in Lending Act
(Regulation Z): General QM Loan Definition,” 85 Federal Register 86308-86400, December 29, 2020.
166 For example, the CFPB found that some households had difficulty refinancing into less expensive loans 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 Assessment Report, January 2019, pp. 11, 147-153,
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ability-to-repay-qualified-mortgage_assessment-report.pdf.
167 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition Under the Truth in Lending Act
(Regulation Z): Seasoned QM Loan Definition,” 85 Federal Register 86402-86455, December 29, 2020. This
amendment was implemented as required by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
Congressional Research Service

37

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

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, 2022.168 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
for the 2020 amendments from some in the mortgage industry,169 the CFPB issued a final rule on
April 30, 2021, adopting the delay.170
The CFPB has also indicated that it may reconsider the seasoned QM rule, as well as aspects of
the General QM rule, in the future.171
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,172 or, potentially, 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

of 2018 (P.L. 115-174).
168 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition Under the Truth in Lending Act
(Regulation Z): General QM Loan Definition; Delay of Mandatory Compliance Date,” 86 Federal Register 12839-
12857, March 5, 2021.
169 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.
170 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Qualified Mortgage Definition under the Truth 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.
171 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.
172 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 Toomey released a set of guiding principles
for housing finance reform; see “Toomey 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.
Congressional Research Service

38

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

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.173 The decision allows the President to remove the director at will,
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 Goals.174 In
December 2021, President Biden announced that he would nominate Acting Director Thompson
to be the permanent FHFA Director.175 The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on her
nomination on January 13, 2022,176 and advanced her nomination to the full Senate on March 16,
2022.177
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

173 Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021).
174 FHFA, “Sandra L. Thompson Announced as Acting Director of FHFA,” news release, June 23, 2021,
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Sandra-L-Thompson-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.
175 The White House, “President Biden Announces Nominee for Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency,”
December 14, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/14/president-biden-
announces-nominee-for-director-of-the-federal-housing-finance-agency/#:~:text=
WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20President%20Joe%20Biden,Housing%20Finance%20Agency%
20(FHFA).
176 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Nomination Hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd
sess., January 13, 2022, https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/01/04/2022/nomination-hearing-1.
177 U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, “Brown Moves Fed and FHFA Nominees,” press
release, March 16, 2022, https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/brown-moves-fed-and-fhfa-nominees.
Congressional Research Service

39

Housing Issues in the 117th Congress

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

Joseph V. Jaroscak

Analyst in Economic Development Policy

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 not 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 4 · UPDATED
40