ROAD to Housing Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill proposes a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to tackle the national housing supply shortage and affordability crisis by leveraging federal programs and incentivizing state and local reforms.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream to Housing Act of 2025" or "ROAD to Housing Act of 2025," is an omnibus measure aimed at increasing affordable housing supply in America through a wide range of reforms. It addresses financial literacy, housing construction incentives, manufactured housing, access to homeownership, program reforms for disaster recovery and homelessness, and housing for veterans. Key provisions include streamlining environmental reviews, adjusting CDBG allocations based on housing growth, establishing new grant programs for housing innovation and blighted building conversion, modernizing manufactured housing regulations, and reforming various HUD and USDA housing programs.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill's holistic approach is necessary to address the complex and interconnected issues contributing to the housing crisis. They contend that streamlining regulations, incentivizing new construction, promoting manufactured housing, and improving access to financing will significantly boost housing supply and affordability across urban, suburban, and rural areas. Proponents also highlight the bill's focus on vulnerable populations, disaster recovery, and veteran housing as crucial elements for a more equitable housing landscape.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, the bill's broad scope and numerous provisions could lead to administrative complexities and unintended consequences. Some might raise concerns about potential federal overreach into local zoning, the effectiveness of certain incentives, or the fiscal implications of new grant programs. Others might contend that some reforms might not adequately protect existing tenants or communities from displacement due to new development.
This is a lengthy and complex bill, requiring significant time to read and understand its numerous interconnected provisions and amendments to existing law.
Sec. 101, Title I
Reforms to Housing Counseling and Financial Literacy Programs
This section amends the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to reform housing counseling programs. It requires the Secretary of HUD to conduct performance reviews of counseling agencies, allows for consideration of counselor performance based on mortgage default rates, and establishes a certification process for counselors. It also mandates that borrowers with certain delinquent mortgage loans (FHA, VA, USDA) be offered an opportunity for housing counseling, with costs potentially covered by the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these reforms will improve the quality and accountability of housing counseling services, ensuring that borrowers receive competent advice and that federal funds are used effectively to prevent foreclosures.
Critics contend
Some might argue that linking counselor performance to default rates could be unfair, as many factors outside a counselor's control influence loan defaults. Increased oversight could also create administrative burdens for smaller counseling agencies.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for accountability and quality in housing counseling with the potential for increased administrative burden and the difficulty of isolating a counselor's impact on complex financial outcomes.
Sec. 203, Title II
Housing Supply Frameworks Act
This Act requires the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research at HUD to publish guidelines and best practices for State and local zoning frameworks within three years. These guidelines aim to support adequate housing production and opportunities at every income level. Recommendations include reducing parking minimums, increasing building heights, reducing minimum lot sizes, eliminating accessory dwelling unit restrictions, and streamlining development reviews. It also abolishes the existing Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse.
Sec. 204, Title II
Whole-Home Repairs Act
This section establishes a pilot program at HUD to provide grants to implementing organizations (local governments, states, non-profits) for administering whole-home repairs for eligible homeowners and eligible landlords. Repairs can address accessibility, habitability, safety, and energy efficiency. Homeowner grants are direct, while landlord assistance is via forgivable loans, contingent on maintaining affordability and tenant protections for at least three years post-repair. The program is authorized to use up to $30 million from existing HUD funds and terminates on October 1, 2031.
Sec. 206, Title II
Build Now Act: Adjustments to Community Development Block Grant Allocations
This section amends the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to adjust allocations for metropolitan cities and urban counties based on their housing growth improvement rate. Eligible recipients with a housing growth improvement rate at or above the median, or those with extremely high growth, will receive a bonus amount. Conversely, recipients with a rate below the median will see their CDBG allocation decreased by 10 percent. This aims to incentivize local governments to increase housing supply. The adjustments take effect in the second full fiscal year after enactment and remain through FY2042.
Sec. 208, Title II
Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act (NEPA Streamlining for HUD)
This section directs the Secretary of HUD to expand and reclassify certain housing-related activities under administrative regulations to streamline environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It moves various activities, such as tenant-based rental assistance, supportive services, minor public facility repairs, rehabilitation of 1-4 unit residential buildings, and certain infill projects, into categories with less stringent environmental review requirements (exempt or categorical exclusions). The goal is to reduce review times and administrative costs, particularly for affordable housing.
Sec. 209, Title II
Innovation Fund for Housing Supply Growth
This section establishes a competitive grant program at HUD to reward eligible entities (metropolitan cities, urban counties, local governments, Indian tribes) that have demonstrated an objective improvement in housing supply growth. Grants, ranging from $250,000 to $10 million, can be used for various community development activities, including those that facilitate the expansion of attainable housing supply. Priority is given to entities using innovative policies or showing marked improvement in housing growth. The program is authorized for $200 million annually for fiscal years 2027-2031.
Sec. 211, Title II
Build More Housing Near Transit Act
This section amends the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grants program (49 U.S.C. 5309) to incentivize transit-oriented development. It introduces the term 'pro-housing policy' and allows the Secretary of Transportation to increase a project's rating for justification criteria if the applicant submits documented evidence of pro-housing policies for areas accessible to transit facilities along the project route. These policies include reducing parking minimums, establishing by-right approval processes, reducing minimum lot sizes, and increasing residential height limits or dwelling units.
Sec. 212, Title II
Revitalizing Empty Structures Into Desirable Environments (RESIDE) Act
This section establishes the Blighted Building to Housing Conversion Program, a pilot program that awards competitive grants to eligible entities (participating jurisdictions in the HOME program) to convert vacant and abandoned industrial or commercial buildings into attainable housing. Grants range from $1 million to $10 million and can be used for property acquisition, demolition, remediation, construction, or community land trusts. Priority is given to projects in economically distressed areas, Opportunity Zones, or those addressing identified housing needs. The program is funded by excess HOME Investment Partnerships Program amounts (up to $100 million annually) if HOME appropriations exceed $1.35 billion for FY2027-2031.
Sec. 301, Title III
Housing Supply Expansion Act (Manufactured Home Definition and State Certifications)
This section fundamentally changes the definition of 'manufactured home' in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 to include homes 'with or without a permanent chassis.' It requires states to certify annually that their laws treat all manufactured homes (including those without a permanent chassis) in parity with traditional manufactured homes regarding financing, title, insurance, taxes, etc. States that fail to submit this certification will be prohibited from allowing the manufacture, installation, or sale of covered manufactured homes within their borders.
Sec. 403, Title IV
Appraisal Industry Improvement Act
This section amends the National Housing Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to reform the appraisal industry. It updates FHA appraiser certification requirements, allowing federal employees to be licensed in one state for all FHA appraisals and requiring verifiable education in FHA appraisal requirements. It also allows the Appraisal Subcommittee to adjust annual registry fees for Appraisal Management Companies, mandates the inclusion of State credentialed trainee appraisers on the national registry, and authorizes grants for appraisal workforce and training initiatives.
Sec. 404, Title IV
Helping More Families Save Act (Escrow Expansion Pilot Program)
This section establishes a pilot program for HUD to select up to 25 eligible entities to manage escrow accounts for up to 5,000 families receiving HUD Section 8 or 9 assistance. The program escrows increases in rent paid by covered families due to earned income increases. Funds, including interest, can be withdrawn after the family ceases welfare assistance, or after 5-7 years, or earlier for self-sufficiency goals. Families can recertify income multiple times a year, and participation is voluntary, with an opt-out option. The program terminates after 10 years, and a study on its effectiveness is required.
Sec. 501, Title V
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act (Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund and CDBG-DR Program)
This section establishes a permanent Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund in the Treasury and a Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program. HUD is given lead responsibility for disaster-related housing and recovery. The CDBG-DR program will provide grants from the Fund for long-term recovery, restoration, economic revitalization, and mitigation in areas affected by catastrophic major disasters, using a formula allocation. It includes provisions for preliminary funding, interchangeability of funds across disasters, grantee plans, low- and moderate-income benefit requirements, and robust financial controls and reporting.
Sec. 502, Title V
HOME Investment Partnerships Reauthorization and Improvement Act
This section reauthorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and introduces several improvements. It increases the cap on administrative funds for participating jurisdictions from 10% to 15%. It allows the Secretary to remove jurisdictions from reallocation if they fail to meet program requirements. It expands the definition of affordable housing to include 'small-scale housing' (up to 4 rental units) under alternative requirements and modifies homeownership resale restrictions to allow for community land trust purchases and waivers for military members or heirs. It also eliminates the commitment deadline for HOME funds and strengthens enforcement for noncompliance.
Sec. 503, Title V
Rural Housing Service Reform Act
This section introduces extensive reforms to USDA's Rural Housing Service (RHS) programs. It applies multifamily mortgage foreclosure procedures to USDA loans and preserves rental assistance contracts upon foreclosure. It mandates a study on rural housing loan subsidies and their recapture. It authorizes appropriations for RHS staffing and IT upgrades, and permanently establishes the Housing Preservation and Revitalization Program for multifamily rental housing. It also modifies loan terms, adjusts rural housing voucher amounts and eligibility, and streamlines application reviews, aiming to improve efficiency and preserve affordable rural housing.
Sec. 504, Title V
New Moving to Work Cohort
This section authorizes HUD to add up to 25 additional high-performing public housing agencies (PHAs) to a new 'Economic Opportunity and Pathways to Independence Cohort' within the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program. It limits the types of waivers available to this cohort, focusing on those that encourage employment and self-sufficiency. PHAs in this cohort can expend up to 5% of their housing assistance payments for other purposes, with specific funding formulas for renewals and administrative fees. The section also mandates comprehensive reporting and oversight requirements for all MTW agencies.
Sec. 505, Title V
Reducing Homelessness Through Program Reform Act
This section introduces several reforms to federal homelessness programs. It increases the administrative cost cap for Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) from 7.5% to 10%. It amends the Continuum of Care (CoC) program to allow for 2-year funding notifications, streamline unified funding agency designations, and expand eligible activities (e.g., arrears for rent/utilities). It also modifies Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) income verification to accept third-party calculations. The section mandates studies on health care/homelessness coordination, authorizes demonstration projects, and streamlines coordinated entry processes, aiming to improve efficiency and outcomes for homeless individuals and families.
Sec. 603, Title VI
Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act
This section amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exclude certain disability benefits received by veterans under chapter 11 or 15 of title 38, U.S. Code, from income calculations for determining eligibility for the supported housing program under Section 8(o)(19) (VASH vouchers) and for other types of housing assistance. This exclusion applies for income eligibility purposes, but not for the definition of adjusted income. It also applies to veterans renting residential units constructed on Department of Veterans Affairs property.
Sec. 701, Title VII
Requiring Annual Testimony and Oversight from Housing Regulators
This section mandates annual testimony before the relevant Congressional committees from the Secretary of HUD, the President of the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the Federal Housing Commissioner, the Administrator of the Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Executive Director of the Loan Guaranty Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). These officials must testify on the status of their respective housing programs and government-guaranteed or insured mortgages. It also requires the FHA Mortgagee Review Board to report to Congress.
Sec. 705, Title VII
Appraisal Modernization Act (Reconsideration of Value and Public Appraisal Database Study)
This section amends the Truth in Lending Act to establish a consumer right to reconsideration of value or a subsequent appraisal if they believe an appraisal is unsupported, deficient, or discriminatory. Creditors must have a review process, provide disclosures to consumers, and order a subsequent appraisal at their own expense if material deficiencies or discrimination are found, referring findings to regulatory boards or enforcement agencies. It also mandates a GAO study on the feasibility of creating a publicly available appraisal database that consolidates data from covered agencies (FHFA, HUD, USDA, VA), assessing costs, benefits, risks, and data matching with HMDA.
The fair market rate cost of foreclosure mitigation counseling for delinquent FHA, VA, and USDA borrowers may be paid for by the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
Sec. 101(j)(3), Title I
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice, as the funding mechanism is directly tied to the specific program being authorized. However, its placement might obscure the direct fiscal impact on the MMI Fund.
Case for: Supporters argue that funding counseling from the MMI Fund is a proactive measure to prevent foreclosures, which ultimately protects the fund by reducing losses from defaulted loans.
Case against: Critics might argue that using the MMI Fund for counseling costs could divert resources from its primary purpose of insuring mortgages, potentially impacting its capital ratio.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions of dollars annually from the MMI Fund, depending on default rates and counseling uptake.
Amends the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program to strike the sunset date of 'September 30, 2029' and insert 'for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter', effectively making the program permanent.
Sec. 201(1), Title II
Why it matters:Making a program permanent through an amendment to an appropriations act is a common tactical maneuver to avoid a more rigorous reauthorization debate, especially for programs that have proven popular but might face scrutiny on their long-term structure.
Case for: Proponents argue that making RAD permanent provides long-term certainty for public housing authorities and developers, encouraging greater investment in the preservation and rehabilitation of public housing stock.
Case against: Critics might argue that making a demonstration program permanent without a full reauthorization debate bypasses proper legislative oversight and prevents a thorough review of the program's effectiveness and potential reforms.
Estimated impact: Ensures the continued operation of the RAD program indefinitely, impacting billions in public housing preservation and leveraging private capital.
Abolishes the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse, established under section 1205 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, and repeals the corresponding section of law.
Sec. 203(d), Title II
Why it matters:The abolition of an existing, albeit perhaps underutilized, entity might be included here because the new 'Housing Supply Frameworks Act' effectively supersedes its function. It's a clean-up measure that might not warrant standalone attention.
Case for: Proponents argue that the new, more comprehensive 'Housing Supply Frameworks Act' will provide a more effective and up-to-date mechanism for addressing regulatory barriers, making the existing Clearinghouse redundant.
Case against: Critics might argue that abolishing an existing resource, even if it was underperforming, could lead to a loss of institutional knowledge or a gap in data collection until the new system is fully operational.
Estimated impact: Eliminates a federal entity and its associated administrative costs, estimated to be minor.
Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act to increase the investment limit for national banks and state member banks in community development from 15% to 20% of their capital and surplus.
Sec. 205, Title II
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to existing statutes that has a direct impact on bank investment capacity. Its placement might be due to its direct relevance to 'Community Investment and Prosperity' but could be overlooked by those not specifically tracking banking law amendments.
Case for: Proponents argue that increasing this limit will allow banks to make greater investments in community development projects, including affordable housing, thereby stimulating local economies and addressing critical needs.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about increasing banks' exposure to community development investments, potentially impacting their safety and soundness if not managed prudently, especially if these investments carry higher risks.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in additional community development investments by national and state member banks.
Amends the definition of 'manufactured home' in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5402(6)) by striking 'on a permanent chassis' and inserting 'with or without a permanent chassis'.
Sec. 301(a), Title III
Why it matters:This is a highly technical but fundamental change. It's placed in the definitions section because it alters the scope of the entire Act. Its technical nature makes it 'buried' for a casual reader, but it's a deliberate and significant policy choice.
Case for: Proponents argue this modernization allows for greater flexibility in manufactured housing design and installation, enabling more innovative and potentially more affordable factory-built housing options to meet diverse market needs.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about potential confusion or regulatory gaps if the distinction of a permanent chassis is removed, especially regarding financing, titling, and local zoning that often relies on this distinction.
Estimated impact: Expands the types of factory-built homes that fall under federal manufactured housing standards, potentially increasing housing supply and innovation in construction methods.
Establishes the Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within the Office of the Secretary at HUD, responsible for oversight and coordination of all departmental disaster preparedness and response responsibilities.
Sec. 501(b)(2), Title V
Why it matters:While an internal restructuring, creating a dedicated office for disaster management signals a significant shift in HUD's operational focus and commitment to disaster response. Its placement is logical within the HUD Act but could be missed by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that a dedicated office will improve HUD's efficiency and effectiveness in disaster response and recovery, ensuring better coordination and a more comprehensive approach to supporting affected communities.
Case against: Critics might argue that creating new offices can lead to bureaucratic bloat or overlap with existing departmental functions, rather than genuinely improving coordination.
Estimated impact: Streamlines HUD's internal disaster response capabilities, potentially improving federal assistance delivery to disaster-affected areas.
Eliminates the commitment deadline for HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds by striking subsection (g) of section 218 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
Sec. 502(e), Title V
Why it matters:The commitment deadline has been a point of contention for participating jurisdictions, and its removal offers significant flexibility. Its placement within a series of technical amendments might obscure its importance to those not deeply familiar with HOME program operations.
Case for: Proponents argue that eliminating the commitment deadline provides greater flexibility for participating jurisdictions to plan and execute complex affordable housing projects, reducing pressure to rush decisions and allowing for more strategic use of funds.
Case against: Critics might argue that commitment deadlines are important for ensuring timely expenditure of federal funds and preventing funds from sitting idle, and that removing them could lead to slower project development.
Estimated impact: Increases flexibility for state and local governments in managing HOME funds, potentially improving project quality and strategic planning, but could also lead to slower obligation rates.
Amends the Housing Act of 1949 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain any rental assistance payments attached to dwelling units in multifamily properties during the process of foreclosure and management/disposition of properties owned or mortgaged by the Secretary.
Sec. 503(a)(2), Title V
Why it matters:This is a technical but important protection for tenants in USDA-assisted properties. Its placement is logical within the rental assistance section but could be missed by a casual reader focused on broader program reforms.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures continuity of housing assistance for vulnerable tenants in rural areas, preventing displacement and maintaining affordability even during property distress or ownership changes.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against maintaining tenant protections during foreclosure. Some might generally question the administrative burden on USDA to manage these contracts during complex foreclosure processes.
Estimated impact: Protects rental assistance for thousands of low-income rural tenants in USDA-assisted properties, ensuring housing stability during property transitions.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to revise section 3555.102(c) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, to exclude licensed, registered, or regulated home-based child care providers (or applicants to become such) from certain Department of Agriculture loan restrictions.
Sec. 503(q), Title V
Why it matters:This is a targeted carve-out for a specific type of home-based business. Its technical nature and reference to a specific regulation make it 'buried' for a general audience, but it's a deliberate policy choice to support rural child care.
Case for: Proponents argue this change supports rural economic development and addresses the critical shortage of child care in rural areas by removing a regulatory barrier for home-based providers seeking USDA loans.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against supporting child care providers. Some might generally question the potential impact on loan risk if certain restrictions are lifted.
Estimated impact: Facilitates access to USDA loans for rural home-based child care providers, potentially increasing child care options in underserved areas.
Excludes certain disability benefits received by veterans under chapter 11 or chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code, from income calculations for determining eligibility for the supported housing program under Section 8(o)(19) (VASH vouchers) and for other types of housing assistance (but not for adjusted income).
Sec. 603(a), Title VI
Why it matters:This is a highly specific but impactful change to how veteran disability benefits are treated for housing eligibility. Its placement within a technical amendment to a definition makes it 'buried' for a casual reader, but it's a deliberate policy choice to aid veterans.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that veterans' service-related disability benefits do not inadvertently disqualify them from housing assistance, particularly for programs designed to help unhoused veterans, thereby honoring their service and supporting their well-being.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions designed to aid veterans. Some might generally question the fiscal impact of expanding eligibility for federal housing programs without corresponding increases in appropriations.
Estimated impact: Increases eligibility for VASH vouchers and other housing assistance for a subset of disabled veterans, potentially reducing veteran homelessness.