The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would cut red tape, reward cities that build more homes, and limit home buying from large investors.

A generation of Americans is being priced out of homeownership. Congress may finally be doing something about it.

This week, the Senate voted 89-10 to pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act – co-led by Republican Sen. Tim Scott and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, not a duo you see together often. Here’s what’s in it, who’s behind it, and why the House is the remaining question.

The Housing Crunch, By the Numbers

America is short about 4 million homes, and it shows.

Rents are at record highs. The median sale price for a house in 2025 was just over $400,000. Adjusting for inflation, home prices have been climbing with no sign of letting up.

Meanwhile, the U.S. only built 1.5 million homes last year – an 8% drop from the year before, even as the population kept growing.

The math isn’t complicated. When demand grows and supply shrinks, prices go up. Americans aren’t going to stop wanting houses any time soon, so the only solution is to increase supply – or, as President Trump says, “Build, Baby, Build!”

And it should work. A 2025 study from the University of Chicago found that every 1% increase in housing supply reduces average rent by 0.19%. That may sound small, but across millions of renters and a multi-trillion-dollar housing market, small gains add up fast.

That’s exactly what the Senate is trying to do with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

What the Bill Does

The ROAD Act is a budget-neutral plan to remove the obstacles that make housing slow and expensive to build.

The centerpiece is a revamped Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Cities that build more housing would receive bonus CDBG funding; cities that fall short of their housing goals would see their funding reduced. It’s a carrot-and-stick approach designed to push local governments – which ultimately control zoning and permitting – in the right direction.

Beyond that, the bill:

• Creates a $200 million Innovation Fund for cities that reform zoning and permitting;
• Expands federal environmental review exemptions for housing projects to speed up approvals;
• Streamlines the Section 8 inspection process so more landlords accept housing vouchers;
• Directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to study financing barriers for lower-cost homes; and
• Standardizes the mortgage appraiser licensing process.

The Corporate Homebuying Provision

The most politically charged part of the bill has nothing to do with red tape.

A section called “Homes are for People, Not Corporations” – drawing on a Trump executive order – would ban large entities from purchasing new single-family homes if they already own 350 or more. There are narrow exceptions, like “build-to-rent” where investors can build or buy newly-built homes if they rent them out, but they have to sell the house within 7 years.

This idea is pretty popular. Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank, found that 73% of voters supported banning corporate investors from buying single-family homes last month. GrayHouse, a Republican polling firm, found 59% of voters in support.

But it seems unlikely to have an impact on affordability. According to the Wall Street Journal, large investors account for less than 1% of the single-family housing stock. They own even fewer homes in the most expensive markets like Los Angeles (0.3%), Boston (0.02%) and Washington, D.C. (0.07%).

Other analysts are worried this provision could actually limit housing supply. Pew found that restrictions on build-to-rent investors would actually reduce single-family home construction by as many as 100,000 units per year. Housing economist Kevin Erdmann argued the provision “would probably end the market for new build-to-rent single-family homes” – the opposite of what housing advocates want.

It’s a tension built into the bill: the anti-corporate provision is popular with voters frustrated by Wall Street landlords, but it undermines the supply goals the rest of the bill is trying to achieve.

Who’s Behind It

That tension hasn’t stopped a wide coalition from lining up behind the bill.

The ROAD Act is widley endorsed across the ideological spectrum the White House, the National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Habitat for Humanity, Enterprise Community Partners, and the Bipartisan Policy Center all back it.

The public appetite is there, too. A May 2024 Morning Consult poll found that 74% of Americans said the lack of affordable homes is a significant problem, and 78% supported passing bipartisan legislation to increase the supply of affordable homes.

The Senate Is On Board. The House Is the Question.

The 89-10 Senate margin makes the path look easy, but the House is more complicated.

The House passed a similar housing bill in February by a lopsided 390-9 margin, but the latest version includes new provisions the House hasn’t voted on.

Some House Republicans have balked at an unrelated rider that would temporarily ban the Federal Reserve from creating a digital currency; far-right members want a permanent ban, not a temporary one. Free-market conservatives may also push back on the “Homes are for People, Not Corporations” provision, which the House never saw in the earlier version.

Rather than an up-or-down vote, Speaker Johnson has floated sending the bill to conference – a process that could mean more negotiations, more delays, and a narrower path to becoming law.

For now, the bill waits. So do the 4 million missing homes.