What you need to know when the housing bill returns to Congress this week

Congress will again take up its major, bipartisan housing legislation package this week.

The 21st Century Road to Housing Act, a broad package of housing reforms, will be debated in the House of Representatives on Tuesday. Sources on both sides of the aisle tell Realtor.com® that some congressional leaders would like to see a vote on Wednesday or Thursday.

President Donald Trump has called for progress on the stalled bill. While he urged the House to approve the Senate version, he has not spoken on the House’s new amendments.

The bill, one of the most comprehensive housing reform packages in decades, is an opportunity for both parties to achieve bipartisan victory ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

But the House and Senate versions contain language differences that target institutional investors in the single-family home market. Trump and some progressive Democrats have called for tough action against institutional landlords, but the issue is a sticking point for moderates.

What’s happening this week?

The House passed its version of the bill in February. The Senate passed its own bill in March, but its version was more comprehensive and included the ban on investors, among many other provisions. The chambers must reach an agreement before the bill can go to the White House.

So this week, the House will consider a resolution to agree to the Senate amendments. But the latest version of the House bill includes some changes, most notably to the language of the investor ban. That language was a sticking point in the House.

Several prominent real estate groups raised concerns about the bill, especially as it targets build-to-rent operators, with a rule requiring them to sell their properties within seven years.

The Senate may have to approve the changes later in the House of Representatives, because the two chambers must agree on one version of the bill before Trump can sign it. That could mean the chambers would have to convene a conference committee to agree on a final text, which would again require a vote from both chambers.

The National Association of Home Buildersthe Association of Mortgage Bankers, and American Chamber of Commerce prepared in support of the amended bill.

What do MPs say?

The bill’s main shepherds, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. French HillRanking Member Rep., R-Arkansas. Maxine WatersD-California, and Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike FloodR-Nebraska urged the bill to be brought forward.

A motley crew of House groups that typically disagree have all come out to pass this latest version of the bill. This also applies to the 135-member bipartisanship House Real Estate Caucus and the progressive 115 members New Democratic Coalition. Both called on their members to support the bill this weekend.

“Chairman Hill and Ranking Member Waters’ bill adequately reforms this provision while delivering on our shared commitment to restoring access to the American dream of homeownership,” said Real Estate Caucus Co-Chair. Lou CorreaD-California, said this weekend.

Some members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus are outspoken opponents of the changes between the two chambers. Chairman Rep. Andy Harris R-Maryland, believes that the Senate version contains too many concessions and mandates from Senate liberals, Politico reported this.

Rep. Bernie MorenoR-Ohio, R-Ohio, previously said in the House of Representatives that the bill should prevent developers from permanently locking residents out of their communities.

Where is the ban for institutional investors?

The House version now also includes a ban on institutional investors in the single-family home market and threatens fines for entities that acquire more than 350 homes after the bill takes effect.

The House version now exempts build-to-rent developers from a rule that would have forced them to divest their assets within seven years. That had set off a firestorm of concerns that the rule could crush investment in build-to-rent projects, reducing available housing stock.

The House bill also removed the requirement that build-to-rent developers then spend 15% of the purchase price on upgrades. Instead, all they have to do is get a house ready for a mortgage.

Those changes pleased the NAHB, who were strong critics of the previous language.

“We urge House members to pass this landmark legislation and ask the Senate to quickly approve this compromise,” says NAHB Chairman Bill Owens said.

How will the bill impact Community Development Block Grant programs?

The House of Representatives bill made adjustments to reforms proposed for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, which provide annual grants to local governments to support the development of affordable housing.

The bill ties CDBG allocations to housing growth. Municipalities that produce homes above a certain threshold receive a bonus, municipalities below that receive a fine. This provision concerns some groups, such as the National Association of Counties, which worries that such a measure would add instability to the CDBG program.

And they say the move could complicate multi-year real estate developments. NaCo also says it ignores local nuances in zoning laws and local development capacity. The revised bill limits fines to $1 million, alleviating some of this fear because only the largest municipalities come close.

The Trump administration has made no secret of its criticism of the CDBG program and has proposed cutting the program directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget. But that idea appears to be broadly unpopular with Congress.

The House also struck out a Senate provision that sought to permanently enshrine the CDBG Disaster Recovery program.

What consequences could the bill have for tenants?

Bloomberg also reported this on a letter from HUD this weekend, raising concerns about several provisions. A provision to study tenant disputes involving large institutional investors could have “serious negative consequences” and “could involve HUD in broader tenant-related matters than intended.”

It also called the idea of ​​an eviction hotline unnecessary, saying local and state governments already have the resources to do the same.