Housing in the Heartland: Addressing our Rural Housing Needs (EventID=118377)

Ask all the witnesses to take their seats. We'll be going in shortly. The subcommittee on housing and insurance will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time.

This hearing is entitled Housing in the Heartland: Addressing Our Rural Housing Needs. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record.

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. First of all, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I very much uh look forward to hearing your testimony on the topic of housing in rural America. Thank you for coming 30 minutes early given the House's schedule today.

So far this year, we have focused this subcommittee's work on the rising cost of housing in America. We've spent our hearing in March focusing on the underlining driving force behind the problem, and that is a lack of housing supply. In May, we had an opportunity to examine some of the alternate building methods that can bring supply online for less cost like manufactured housing, modular housing, and even early stage experiments with 3D printing homes.

Today, we are going to dig into the challenges with building housing in rural America. The problems in the rural parts of our country are a little different than those that we see in the urban areas. While a rural area may have lower land costs, the logistics associated with getting homes built in rural areas can introduce some unique challenges that drive up costs, such as it's more expensive to transport building materials to a remote part of the country. Longer supply chain means more cost, and those costs are often passed down to the home buyer or the renter.

Rural areas may have less contractors and subcontractors nearby to do the work needed to build the home. Labor shortages can lead to expensive delays on a project or even stop projects altogether when an area simply doesn't have the experts needed to do the work at all. Alternatively, it can mean bringing labor in from further away from the project site, which contributes higher labor costs overall. Again, these costs are passed down to the home buyer or the renter.

However, as we examine what drives costs in rural housing markets, we'll also see some common themes that we've already discussed in this subcommittee uh that will reemerge, namely regulatory burdens from the federal government that often hit smaller communities with less resources uh the hardest.

Uh through my work uh so far in Congress, I have identified four key cost drivers in federal housing projects. I call them the four horsemen of the housing apocalypse. Number one, environmental review requirements that delay a project's start and drive up cost. Number two, Build America Buy America requirements that drive up the cost of critical construction materials and appliances, sometimes 20, even 40% more than otherwise uh necessary. Uh Davis Bacon requirements that from what I've heard are much more costly due to the associated reporting requirements than they are for the actual cost of paying prevailing wages. And number four, Section 3 requirements that make it more difficult to find contractors to do the job, particularly in rural areas with some of the workforce challenges that I mentioned.

While many of these requirements are well-intentioned, their combined impact significantly drives up costs of projects using federal dollars. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about both the challenges that are unique to rural housing markets and how some of those common federal regulatory challenges affect projects in rural areas.

Finally, this hearing will also serve as an opportunity to explore the impact of federal rural housing programs like the USDA's Rural Housing Service. The RHS operates programs under Title V of the U.S. Housing Act of 1949. The Section 515 program provides affordable housing uh rental housing for low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The Section 538 program provides financing to increase the supply of rural housing for low and moderate income people. and the Section 502 program that makes direct loans to low-income borrowers to rehabilitate or purchase a primary residence.

Ranking Member Cleaver has a draft bill noticed to this hearing that would make some changes to these programs, which I'm sure will be a subject of discussion today with our witnesses and our members. I'm excited to dig deeper into each of these issues today and I look forward to our witnesses' testimony. With that, I yield back.

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to thank you for uh giving a great deal of your your time to this and other issues related to uh contemporary housing problems. Uh I represent uh the fifth district of Missouri and my congressional district includes Kansas City, Missouri and the surrounding metropolitan area. Before redistricting, I spent nearly two decades representing a district that stretched from Kansas City, Missouri in the far west to a city called Slater, Missouri near the U center of the state. Slater is a very small town of 2,000 that unless you are a diehard fan of Steve McQueen, the king of cool, uh, and know about the trivia at his birthplace, you probably never heard of Slater.

Uh I spent a lot of time in rural America, having been born there uh in Texas. But rural America is home to 20% of the United States population and growing and covers more than 90% of the U.S. landmass. A lack of new construction, limited investment in existing housing stock, and economic constraints are driving a shortage of safe and decent housing in rural America. Over one-third of rental units in rural America are at least 55 years old. Preserving and increasing housing supply in rural areas is a formidable challenge but possible.

Many small rural communities face higher construction and material costs, struggle to access private financing and philanthropic support support, and lack the capacity to navigate the complexities of federal programs. Many are also at risk of a disproportionate loss of housing stock following extreme weather events. Strong public investment and public and private partnerships are now needed.

Uh Chairman Flood and I uh spent time this week exploring ways that HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships Program can better be tailored for increasing supply in smaller and rural areas. In addition to HUD, rural development programs through the USDA are specifically designed to address the unique challenges in USDA eligible areas. I thank Congressman Nunnelee for working with me on the Rural Housing Service Reform Act, which would improve federal housing rural programs through USDA. This bill includes my "Strategy and Investment Rural Housing Act," which would preserve existing housing, build new housing, and prevent unnecessary housing instability for many communities. These USDA supported housing constituents, the constitutes rather, the only affordable rental housing available. These are low-income veterans, disabled individuals, uh, and fixed-income persons who need help and no housing is there available.

At the same time, the administration's cuts to USDA Rural Development staff are having a detrimental impact. Office closures and dramatic staff reductions do not create efficiency; they create a backlog. I'm hearing concern my hearing uh concerning reports of degraded services and impaired programs uh at USDA uh are happening almost daily. The President has further proposed a $600 million cut to USDA Rural Development and proposed to eliminate or reduce nearly every rural housing program. This includes the Section 502 direct loan program, which has helped more than two million uh individuals uh in low-income rural families achieve home ownership.

I will continue to work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to find productive solutions to rural challenges. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ranking Member Cleaver. Today, we welcome the testimony of Mr. Richard Byer, the President and CEO of the Nebraska Bankers Association. Mr. David Garcia, the Policy Director at Up for Growth. Mr. Ian Moti, Director of Development at the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, testifying on behalf of the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, and Mr. David Lipsetts, the uh President and CEO of the Housing Assistance Council. We thank each of you for taking the time to be here. Each of you will be recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record.

Mr. Byer, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee on Housing and Insurance. My name is Richard Byer. I am President and CEO of the Nebraska Bankers Association. Prior to that, I spent almost nine years as head of economic development for the state of Nebraska. I was responsible for the state's affordable housing program. Maybe just as relevant to today's discussion, I also grew up in the small rural NEA or rural Kansas town of Lacrosse, which has a population of 1,266 people.

Fortunately, Nebraska's had one of the lowest unemployment rates in our country for more than a decade. Conversely, many of our rural counties uh peak population was prior to 1960. Growing employers in rural parts of our state of Nebraska routinely cite a lack of workforce housing as a reason that they are unable to grow jobs.

When evaluating uh the housing market in states like Nebraska, one factor that we often look at is the age of our housing stock. Recent research conducted by the Nebraska House Nebraska Investment Finance Authority notes that 19% of Nebraska's housing units were constructed before 1939. When the data is broken down even further via some r via the rural-urban continuum code, the data highlights that 28 to 36% of homes in Nebraska's most rural counties were built prior to 1940. Quite simply, rural Nebraska's housing stock, like that in other areas of the country, is past retirement age.

There are a number of unique challenges which limit the ability of rural areas to maintain and build new housing. A majority of the homes currently being built in our rural areas of Nebraska are large custom homes which carry a very hefty price tag. Unfortunately, there is a clear lack of housing to accommodate our working families. While it may seem counterintuitive to some, cost for building new housing units in rural areas are substantially higher when compared to similar units in urban areas. As referenced by Congressman Flood, these cost differences are driven by a myriad of economic and market factors. Fundamentally, Nebraska, like other rural areas of our great country, lacks supplies of material vendors, contractors, and subcontractors necessary to build new housing units. Finally, there are very few buildable lots or developers who are willing to take on the substantial risk associated with building housing units in rural areas.

In most cases, the only way to build housing available housing lots is through public-private partnerships, often driven by local units of government. While well-intentioned, use of our existing government housing programs is severely limited because of differing rules and regulations, varying definitions, mismatched application cycles, and inconsistent qualifying income thresholds. As an example, federal rules currently limit the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program to projects which services individuals with incomes below 60% of the market of the area median income. Conversely, the National Housing Trust Fund is limited to those potential tenants with incomes below 30% of AMI. Rural housing developers to be successful routinely layer or stack these various programs to make their projects economically feasible. I have one regional developer that I know that estimates that the administrative burden of layering these various programs adds at least 25% to the overall cost of construction. Current government housing programs also have substantial administrative and reporting burdens, as mentioned by Congressman Flood, that such as lengthy and expensive environmental assessments.

In response to input from member banks, the Nebraska Bankers Association created our Rural Work Rural Workforce Housing Task Force in 2015 focused on finding new solutions to our state's rural housing crisis. The most notable solution resulting from this task force was the creation of our Rural Workforce Housing Investment Fund, which was passed and signed into law by then-Governor and now Senator Pete Ricketts in 2017. Our fund provides state matching grants to local not-for-profit developers in counties with less than 100,000 inhabitants with a focus directly on creating new owner-occupied and rental housing units. This fund uniquely does not have income restrictions, but rather uh limits projects by the unit cost of construction. One unique caveat of the Rural Workforce Housing Fund is a grant recipients cannot use any other federal housing programs, thus restricting the limits that might be placed on these projects. To date, the state of Nebraska has awarded more than $59 million in grants, which have been matched by $36 million in local funds. Our member banks have contributed most of those dollars, and to date, we've seen 331 new owner-occupied units, 655 rental units, and 670 units currently under construction.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to our dialogue.

Thank you, Mr. Byer. Mr. Garcia, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Thank you, Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, uh, and the rest of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the urgency of the nation's rural housing crisis. Um, so my name is David Garcia. I'm the Policy Director at Up for Growth and Up for Growth Action. Uh, we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization focused exclusively on increasing the supply of housing across the country. Uh, we have over 350 member organizations nationwide, which includes builders, advocates, and national trade associations, many of whom actively build in rural communities, including members such as Habitat for Humanity of Lincoln, Nebraska, the Minnesota Housing Partnership, and the Homelessness and Housing Coalition of Kentucky.

Today, my remarks will describe some of the unique challenges facing rural communities, their causes, and the potential solutions for housing. Uh, nationally, we estimate that the country is missing 3.79 million homes, which is a significant shortfall that is spreading uh to other areas of the country that have been previously considered affordable. Rural communities, as stated earlier, they're home to 60 million people or one in five residents. And an increasing number of those people are becoming overwhelmed by trying to pay the rent or afford a home. An estimated 44% of rural renters are cost-burdened, and half of those renters are considered severely cost-burdened. And buying a home has become more difficult as well. In the three years following the pandemic, home prices in non-metro areas grew by about 36%, which is much higher than in urbanized areas. And these trends have not gone unnoticed. Uh, recent polling shows that 80% of rural residents uh believe that housing affordability is deteriorating and 76% agree that America faces a significant housing shortage requiring immediate attention and increased housing construction.

A persistently high poverty rate in rural areas can exacerbate these challenges. More than one in five or 22% of rural households report an annual income below $25,000 compared to 18% nationwide. While the cost of living is comparatively lower in rural communities at times, uh lower wages can make it more difficult for residents to keep up with rising costs, make it harder for new housing development to pencil out, especially when considering the need to upgrade infrastructure such as water, sewer, power, as well as roads.

Many rural communities also lack capacity to approve and plan for new homes. In many places, there may be just a single planner to review applications, ensure compliance with community rules, and issue permits. This lack of capacity also means that the hard and expensive work of updating zoning and land use rules are out of reach for many communities.

Home building in rural America can be more expensive, as noted uh already a couple of times, uh given the high cost of delivering building materials to rural construction sites and the lack of economies of scale given the smaller size of many rural developments. Uh, sourcing construction labor, contractors, and other labor is also difficult, which obviously in turn increases cost.

While these challenges are mostly unique to rural America, we also find that other obstacles are similar to those in larger cities. So, for example, restrictive zoning can limit the construction of different types of housing, such as manufactured housing or accessory dwelling units. Local opposition to new housing, which we commonly refer to as NIMBYism, can stall, shrink, or even halt new housing altogether, just as it does in urban areas.

Thankfully, there are bipartisan solutions that Congress can act on. Critical funding sources such as the 30% basis boost for rural housing projects proposed in the Affordable Credit Improvement Act can accelerate construction and preservation of homes. In addition, the Rural Housing Service Reform Act would bolster USDA's affordable housing programs, while the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act would incentivize home ownership through the rehabilitation of existing uh stock for moderate-income home buyers. And the Road to Housing Act includes a provision to eliminate the HUD permanent steel chassis rule for manufactured housing, which would greatly reduce costs of on the construction of an important housing solution for rural America.

Uh, Congress could also address the capacity gaps I mentioned earlier through targeted assistance through programs like those proposed in the Housing Supply and Frameworks Act and provide policy support in the to be introduced Housing Opportunities Made Easier Act. Both of which are crucial to enabling rural communities to modernize outdated zoning and streamline and ramp up housing production. And so all of these proposals enjoy bipartisan support, including from members here today such as Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, uh, Member Patterson. Uh, you know, these partnerships really offer us an opportunity to work together to deliver affordable, quality, and safe housing to all Americans, from the most rural towns to the largest cities. And so, um, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to today's hearing. I look forward to continued dialogue with the subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Mr. Moti, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Thank you, Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the committee. On behalf of the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, known as CAR, we appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the committee. This statement outlines key issues impacting the rural multifamily housing industry and provides recommendations that will strengthen the federal programs that preserve and expand affordable rental housing as well as bring additional capital to increase the housing stock in rural communities across the country.

CAR is an industry trade association with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, representing the interests of for-profit and nonprofit developers, owners, management companies, lenders, and investors who all participate in the affordable rental housing industry in rural America. My name is Ian Moti. I am the Director of Development for the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, based in Columbus, Ohio. We are a nonprofit corporation that develops and facilitates affordable housing for low-income families. I'm also the current president of CAR.

Throughout rural America, there continues to be an overwhelming need for both affordable and decent housing. The lack of affordable housing reflects limited investments in these localities. Rural renters are more than twice as likely to live in substandard housing compared to people who own their homes. With lower median incomes and higher poverty rates than homeowners, many renters are simply unable to find decent housing that is also affordable. While the demand for rental housing in rural areas remains high, the supply, particularly of new housing, has decreased. Neither the private nor public sector can produce affordable rural housing independently of the other; it needs to be a partnership.

The United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development or RD Section 515 rural multifamily housing and Section 514 farm labor multifamily properties are essential for addressing affordable rural housing needs. Rental assistance or RA under the Section 521 program is essential for many families and elderly households residing in rural America. At the same time, most federally supported multifamily properties are over 35 years old and need modernization. These properties have suffered from federal funding shortages and statutory and regulatory barriers that make recapitalization either difficult or impossible.

Over the next decade, as many as three-quarters of all Section 515 mortgages will mature and with it, and with it, the end of the Section 520 rental assistance contracts, straining over 250,000 families, elderly persons, uh, without the ability to house themselves. Under current law, when a Section 515 mortgage expires, the Section 521 RA also expires. Therefore, it's critical to establish legislative authority to preserve the rental assistance after mortgage maturity. With roughly 75% of RD properties depending on Section 521 RA, this program is a financial backbone of rural housing.

The final appropriation legislation for fiscal year 2024 contains language that provided RD with authority to structure a demonstration program that decouples RA from the Section 515 program for 10,000 units and properties where a mortgage was set to expire in fiscal year 2024. CAR worked closely with RD on the implementation of the decoupling program, which is also known as standalone rental assistance or SAR. The fiscal year 2025 continuing resolution authorized a thousand units eligible for decoupling in the current fiscal year. We're very encouraged by the strong and growing participation in the SAR program, with eight properties, uh, consisting of 157 units enrolled in fiscal year 2024 and 17 properties with 403 units already confirmed for fiscal year 2025. We are optimistic that this program, as it becomes more well-known, participation will continue to increase. However, permanent legislative authority remains essential to ensure that preservation can occur consistently and nationwide. CAR continues to provide support, uh, continues to support the passage of legislation that would allow for decoupling on a permanent basis. I would like to thank Representative Cleaver for his support of the decoupling legislation in the previous Congress. We're hopeful that similar legislation will be introduced in this Congress.

Uh, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, also known as the Housing Credit program, is a vital source for addressing affordable housing in rural communities. It helps bridge the gap between what the market provides and what market demands. Approximately 43% of Section 515 properties are financed with Housing Credits. Since its assumption 36 years ago, approximately 3.7 million affordable rental homes or units have been produced. In multifamily rental housing, the one-year impact for building 100 apartment units is the creation of 161 local jobs with $11.7 million in local income and $2.2 million in local taxes and government revenue.

One challenge impacting the effectiveness of the Housing Credit program in rural areas is the unresolved tax status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Uncertainty of these classifications under the Internal Revenue Code is compromising their ability to participate in multi-investor housing credit funds, which are essential to financing smaller rural deals. Allowing them to fully participate in multi-investor funds would greatly expand capital available for underserved areas. CAR supports legislation that would clarify the Government-Sponsored Enterprises are not subject to restrictions for purposes of housing credit investment.

CAR applauds the administration and Congress for advancing Opportunity Zone reforms that better uh target rural communities. The bill's requirement that 30% of new zones be rural and that 50% of capital directly support housing, jobs, and infrastructure in Sorry, Mr. Your time has expired. Thank you. But we would encourage you to submit that for the record, which we will gladly accept.

Sure. With this, Mr. Lipsetts, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Chairman Flood, um, Ranking Member Cleaver, members of the subcommittee. This feels a whole lot more like choir practice than it does a hearing. I think we're singing all the same tune so far, which feels great.

Um, my name is David Lipsetts, President and CEO of the Housing Assistance Council, uh, commonly referred to as HAC. HAC is a national nonprofit and CDFI that helps local organizations in all 50 states construct good quality homes in rural communities. We also pursue assiduously nonpartisan research that this committee and other national policymakers have been relying on for over half a century.

As we've all discussed, 20% of Americans living in rural communities, we play an outsized role in the nation's economy. We sustain and power the nation with food, fiber, and fuels. We've launched over half the small businesses uh and we maintain a trade surplus. The reality is that despite the vast wealth generated by rural communities, many of the rural families are left facing deep economic challenges. Wages remain stubbornly low. Median family incomes in rural communities are 25% below the rest of the nation. Poverty remains stubbornly high at over 80% of the persistent poverty counties in rural. This reality is neither a recent nor, I would suggest to you, an accidental trend. It's not just free market forces and individuals freely choosing where to live. Public policy has a very heavy hand in this reality. If you hear nothing else from me today, please know that there are economic, tax, and housing policy stripping many Heartland rural communities of their economic engines, anchor institutions, and young people.

The good news here though is that Congress can chart a new course, one in which rural communities are treated fairly by federal policy and programs that are already in place and that nearly all of us in this room support. These are things such as the mortgage interest deduction, Fannie and Freddy as GSEs, CRA, LITC, Opportunity Zones. All these things play positive roles in our housing finance system and yet all have design elements that steer investment to the most overpriced suburban and urban markets in the nation while leaving most rural communities behind. These programs can be improved. It can make the cost of capital for housing preservation and production affordable in each of the markets where it's working and provide public and private sector capacity in the communities that need it most to prime the private market, put public funds to their highest and best use.

HAC encourages a subcommittee to address rural America's housing needs with one, a focus on that capital in small towns, and two, building up the capacity of public, private, religious, nonprofit, and for-profit rural housing providers. Let me use the remainder of this time to focus on two issues. First, affordability is the greatest challenge in rural America. Wages have fallen far below the cost of housing. 5.6 million rural households can't afford the home they live in. This includes millions of homeowners facing mortgages and utility bills that eat up more than 30% of their income and 44% of rural renters that can't afford their own rent. And if you aren't already aware, the affordability crisis has driven a 30% increase in rural homelessness over just the last three years. That is an unconscionable statistic.

Thankfully, many members of this committee and across the House and Senate are supporting proposals that address the crisis, including many I see here today that support the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Improvement Act and its basis boost for LITC properties, the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act with a tax credit that drives private investment into housing production. It also closes the uh cost the gap between the cost of construction and the lower appraised values of many rural homes.

Secondly, bipartisan momentum exists for modernizing housing programs that are designed for rural America and USDA's Rural Housing Service. Housing champions in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle have assembled a package of common sense improvements using public-private partnerships, expanding the roles of CDFIs, and capacity building investments in local housing organizations. You can find many of these in the discussion drafts uh in Mr. Cleaver's bill. Uh, you'll also noted that they are uh supported bipartisan legislation on the Senate side by uh Senators Moran and Shaheen. And I really have to thank Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Nunnelee for continuing the work in this chamber uh that has been launched by uh Mr. Smith and Mr. uh Ms. Smith and Mr. Rounds on the Senate side uh in the Rural Housing Service Affordable uh Act. Central to these bills is the public investment we put into the 533,000 units of 515 housing. 350,000 remain. We have the power to save them. Let's decouple rental assistance.

Once again, HAC appreciates the subcommittee's time, your attention to this topic. I'm looking forward to today's discussion. Thank you, sir.

We'll now turn to member questions. I now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning.

Mr. Byer, in your written testimony, you shared some details about Nebraska's Rural Workforce Housing Investment Fund. The state program provides matching grants to local nonprofit developers and communities with populations of less than 100,000 people. These projects do not have any income restrictions for inhabitants. Instead, the projects are limited by the cost of construction for each home. New homes, single-family home construction is limited to $325,000 per unit, and multifamily unit costs are capped at $250,000 per unit. Instead of having an ongoing requirement that any tenant meets certain income targets, this program is focused solely on controlling building costs and bringing more affordable housing supply online. This program has turned $59 million in state funds into 986 total completed owner-occupied and rental units, which comes out to a little less than $60,000 in state investment per built unit. One of the reasons I wanted to raise this program as part of the conversation today about federal programs and that is that this seems much more prudent and cost-effective uh for building workforce housing supply compared with how our federal programs operate. And I think there's a fundamental question: Why? It's not trying to do too many things at once, in my opinion.

Mr. Byer, if the Rural Workforce Housing Investment Fund program required ongoing income verification requirements for landlords and income requirements for any home buyer purchasing a home, do you think those requirements would add cost and bureaucracy to the program?

Yes, Congressman, I do believe they would add significant cost uh to the way that we administer our housing plan in Nebraska.

Mr. Byer, if the Rural Workforce Housing Investment program included a requirement that all building materials and appliances used in a home be American-made, would that add cost to the program?

Yes, Congressman, I do believe it would add cost significantly.

What if the program included requirements that all contractors and subcontractors on the project tracked and reported the wages of every worker working on the project to comply with a sliding scale calculation of prevailing wage based on subcategories by profession? Do you think reporting would increase costs?

I do, Congressman. We struggle with many of our subcontractors and contractors who may have one or two staff. So, it would be a significant administrative burden.

What if the program included a requirement that 25% of total labor hours on any project be done by low-income workers and that 5% of labor hours must be done by a business that has one of the following characteristics: Uh, number one, is at least 51% owned by low-income people. Number two, had at least 75% of the company's labor hours performed by a low-income worker, or number three, is at least 51% owned by workers in Section 8 assisted housing. Do you think those requirements would increase the program's costs?

Yes, I do. I believe that increases costs significantly, Congressman.

Thank you. The requirements I just described are all requirements for the federal dollars in the HUD programs like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. A program that, like Nebraska's Rural Housing Investment Fund, is designed to build housing supply. I'm sure we all have members and witnesses in this room that may agree with the intent of some of those specific requirements. Paying higher wages, providing more opportunities for lower-income workers, and using American materials in buildings are all goals that I can understand. But every one of those requirements carries a cost, and we need to be smarter about weighing the trade-offs of those costs against their benefits. Congress has a tendency to load up federal programs with ancillary priorities which add cost and ultimately detract from the main objective of the program in the first place. These programs die a death of a thousand cuts. Each new regulatory requirement on labor, procurement, environmental reviews, and everything else slowly can take a housing program and turn it into an expensive bureaucratic exercise. We need to stop diverting resources from the framers, the plumbers, the electricians necessary to build a home to the bureaucrats and outside consultants necessary to fill out the paperwork. With that, I yield back.

The chairman now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver, for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Lipsetts, um, one of the biggest barriers to using HUD programs in rural communities is often um the amount of red tape and regulatory burden that comes with funding. Small rural communities are often not equipped administratively uh to navigate the regulatory complexities of these programs. Um, I've I've represented towns where the the police chief was also the fire chief and also the librarian. So, um, when those programs are um available and we don't get rural communities requesting um, you know, some help because we don't have uh the assistance to even provide help, they don't have many places to go. HUD programs were originally designed to serve cities and urban areas. Uh, what changes uh would you suggest that Congress could make uh to broaden uh HUD programs to smaller and uh rural communities?

Cleaver, thanks for your question. Um, and it's very similar to Chairman Flood's, right? In that we're talking about the intent of programs that we think I think generally we all agree with, yet there are challenges in their application to these programs and they slow down and they create additional expense. Part of the reason that that happens, that that dynamic exists, is because there's not enough money in these programs, and when the pie gets small, people fight fiercely for their piece. And if we had commitment to enough funding for people to live in a decent and humane manner across this country, then we wouldn't have those fights for those small pieces. I think one of the things that best answers your question, um, uh, Ranking Member Cleaver, is that we help those smaller communities build the capacity to apply for and and receive the funds we're talking about, and there are HUD programs to do it. Rural capacity building is a very specific one. I would also suggest Rural Community Development Initiative or RCDI at USDA. That investment right there from Congress will put somebody on the ground in that hometown who has the ability to cut through some of what exists on today's world, not some magic world in the future where we've finally gotten rid of a lot of these regulations, but very much today's process.

So, so HUD and USDA uh should uh work together in order to create whatever technical assistance would be needed. Uh, and since these programs do in in many cases actually overlap one another, uh, is that an alliance that you think would help solve the problem?

So I think I'm one of the nation's very few people who've worked in both those buildings, and and I can tell you they operate in fundamentally different ways. USDA is not HUD. Please do not entertain the idea of taking the Rural Housing Service programs and plopping them down wholesale into a building that has no capacity whatsoever to run them in a retail manner on the ground in the kind of community you suggested. There may be a few ways to do that, but that doesn't preclude us from putting HUD and USDA together to do alignment. There's no reason that you could come up with that a property being built needs more than one environmental review. I'm sorry. If you're layering it on at a state and federal level, multiple different programs because of how hard it is to gather the funds, forget it. We need one environmental review at most for a property built in in the small town that you grew up in. And I've seen that picture of your house that you grew up in uh hanging in your office. And that's exactly what we need to be able to do for those communities.

Thank you. That Thank you very much. I'm going to be quoting you about that uh about not trying to implement programs by putting one of these agencies inside the other or uh or taking what they do and and merging them. Uh, you know, what I think Mr. Garcia. Uh, do you think that the requirements such as uh Davis Bacon uh prevailing wages are making it difficult for rural communities to use uh HUD programs?

Uh, yes, for housing HUD programs, of course. Yes, I agree with that. I think there's two reasons for that. The first is uh that it kind of shrinks the labor pool, particularly of contractors who are not set up to track those uh kinds of requirements. And then, you know, as mentioned earlier, there are a lot of ancillary policy goals that we oftentimes put into these programs that are very well-meaning but do add cost, and this would be one of them.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hill of Arkansas, is now recognized for five minutes.

Well, thank you, Chairman Flood. Thanks to our panel for being here to help us think through the particular issues that challenge housing and housing access and housing affordability in in rural areas. And I thank the the chairman and the ranking member for collaborating on this hearing. It's pretty challenging to do. I mean, I was a banker in uh rural Arkansas for many, many years in the Mississippi Delta. Chicot County has a population of 7,500 people today. When I was opened the bank there, it was probably 15,000, so it's shrunk in 15 years to that amount, and Ashley County has a population of of 18,000, and I wouldn't think any of those counties have stick-built, you know, home builders. They might have a custom builder of a certain amount. So the things that I've noted are, you don't have a regular construction infrastructure in in many rural counties. There are no comps if you build a new house, so you can't get secondary market financing on the loan. It's going to be a portfolio loan for the most part. Um, flood program. They're frequently uh homes built on bigger tracts of land that part of the land is in the floodplain. The house and the house is on a 40-foot hill, but you'd have to deed it out in order to be covered under FEMA, so it's expensive to survey.

Um, but I have seen some successes over those years. I mean, I've seen the grant program, some grant programs of the by the Federal Home Loan Bank be helpful to that marginal, particularly say a marginal multifamily uh developer in a rural area. I've seen that be a good gap filler for a for a construction loan. But I'm interested in Mr. Moti, what are some of the biggest challenges that you've seen in your list of what barriers are in in a rural situation?

Sure. Thank you for the question. Um, developing and and and building housing in rural areas, as you mentioned, there are are several pro uh challenges. Uh, the majority of the work that we do is through the Housing Credit program. Um, attracting investors uh that are purchasing credits at the same prices as in urban areas. Attracting construction debt, perm debt um for small communities um is is also a challenge. The projects that we build in rural areas, just because of the size of the markets, are, you know, 24 units, 30 units, maybe up to 50 or 60 units, and just aren't as attractive to to the our financing partners that we want to work with. So, putting our capital stack together can be difficult.

Um, on the construction side, finding high-quality, capable subcontractors to to build the projects is an issue. Um, we work with a handful of of general contractors, and a lot of times they will have subs that are nowhere near the geographic area that we are in that they will that they will have work on jobs simply because they can't find qualified contractors in those areas. So, it it it runs the gamut from financing to construction to um filling the units with with qualified residents.

Would you find on the finan on the capital stack side? I mean, do you see do you have any model of of working in a state with a large rural population where the the public employees fund or something in a state has, you know, I would I would assume if you could hit some volume is what causes capital not be attracted, just like if I can't build 10 houses at once, I don't want to drive an hour and a half to this place to start a construction job. Is there some way that we could mobilize, you know, retirement financing or pension financing because are the yields, if you got it, you think the yields could be competitive if they were available to a for to a long-term fixed income investor?

Yeah, that's that's not something that we've looked at personally as far as raising that that sort of capital. So, I I don't know if I could really speak to that.

Um, how about you, Mr. Byer? Any comments? You be from a finance from a good banker point of view.

Uh, Mr. Hill, I think it's a great question. I think we need to find all sorts of pots of capital to be able to address this issue. The challenge is, unlike uh some of my fellow testifiers, we're not talking about 60 units in rural Nebraska. We're talking about one to five units, and trying to generate a private sector type return on those investments is really difficult. And that's why in many cases our banks get involved in CRA activities, CDFI activities, those kinds of activities, really to to be involved in that process because otherwise it doesn't make financial sense.

Is it also tough on the uh extension of water and sewer in these kind of towns too? Is that or is that not as big a barrier?

It's a huge challenge trying to develop lots of buildable lots in most of our rural communities, and I I'm a big believer in uh eliminating blight and substandard for that reason and knocking down older homes.

Right. Thank you very much. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. Williams, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver for having this very important hearing today. And thank you, Mr. Cleaver, the ranking member of this subcommittee for your work on the "Strategy and Investment in Rural Housing Preservation Act." Y'all, this would expand the USDA's Rural Housing Service as well as create a new multifamily rental housing preservation and revitalization program that is very much needed. So, I might sound like a broken record because I said this the last time, y'all. Although I represent the fighting fifth district of Georgia, rural housing is important to me personally. I grew up in rural Alabama. I heard our chairman and other members talk about these small towns. And Mr. Cleaver, the fireman might have been the police chief, but in the big city of Smiths Station, Alabama, where I grew up, we didn't even have a police chief or a fireman. We had that one traffic light that only flashed in front of the high school. So, I know a little bit about rural housing because that's my lived experience. That's where I grew up. All of my family is still in the big city of Smiths Station, Alabama. But although I represent a district that is centered in metropolitan Atlanta, I get it. I get the need for rural housing. But not only just that, I came to Congress because as a member of Congress, I understand that the policies that I enact, they impact the entire nation. And so, it is important to me to have policies that help everyone so that future generations of families and children have better opportunities and more quality housing than I did growing up. Because that home that I grew up in in rural Alabama, it was on our family land, and we probably didn't meet all of the regulations and all of the codes that needed to happen because my grandpa built that home, but it had no indoor plumbing and no running water, and there are still people in rural America that need us to be fighting for them. So, I want to make sure that we're doing that part. That's why I'm thankful for Congressman Cleaver and Ranking Member Waters' work here on these important pieces of legislation because it's clear that while my colleagues and I in the Democratic caucus are doing everything to honor Homeownership Month, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making it so much harder for home ownership in rural America and underserved communities. Whether it's this bill that we just voted on, the "One Big Billionaire Bailout," or whatever you want to call it, or this proposed budget for next year, many Americans are about to see in black and white in this budget which side of the aisle really cares about making housing affordable in this country.

Mr. Lipsetts, research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that people living in rural counties not only tend to earn lower incomes and experience higher rates of poverty, but are also more likely to use expensive forms of non-bank credit. Mr. Lipsetts, how do you think these trends harm the ability of rural residents to save and qualify for affordable housing opportunities?

Uh, thank you, Congresswoman Williams, for your question. Uh, the ability for a rural household to save on average is quite strong, and yet the financial services surrounding them does not do not support that. My organization did an analysis some years ago of bank closures, and there is an astounding percentage of trying to recall it. I was just asking staff of 60-some percent of the banks that have closed bank branches have closed in the last 30 years. You don't have financial services when you live in places like Smiths Station, right? We had one bank, but, you know, still not quite enough to meet the needs of everybody who needed it. But one other piece of the puzzle that I think you started to hint at in your opening uh remarks is heir's property. You come from a family property that is going to be split unless there are significant uh legal documents in place, wills, and other things. That property is going to be split and is going to be in danger of uh loss to your family and the wealth you've built up in it. My organization with Fannie Mae has now done analysis of what the uh extent of heir's property is across the country. And I know this isn't your question, but we are desperate to

Get Congress to take a look at the risks that, uh, families, half a million families in the United States face because their, uh, property is tied up in an heir situation, uh, that they can't gain the full wealth of it. And Mr. Lipet, you're right. It was not part of my question, but it is very important to me. And I actually have bipartisan legislation that I'm leading with Congressman Byron Donalds, right here on this committee, to address heirs' properties. So I look forward to, I'm running out of time here, as I always do, because I have so many questions when it comes to making housing affordable for everyone across this country, but I look forward to working with my colleagues on this heirs' properties legislation that is bipartisan, that can truly help us maintain and build generational wealth in this country. Gentlewoman yields back.

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, is now recognized for five minutes. Uh, thank you, Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver for holding this important hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for your time and, uh, being with us here today and sharing your expertise. Uh, Mr. Mounty, as you may be aware, there is a current statutory requirement that manufactured homes be built on a permanent chassis, which can add, frankly, thousands of dollars, uh, to the cost of a manufactured home. Uh, it is my strong belief that this is an outdated requirement that should be removed from statute, and I'm working on introducing legislation again this Congress, which would do just that. Mr. Mounty, in your, in your opinion, would eliminating the statutory requirement for a chassis on every manufactured home increase the affordability and availability of these homes for rural America?

Yes, I, I believe it would increase the, the affordability, uh, and allow units to be created cheaper and, and in a more efficient and quicker manner. I, I agree. And I, and I also would say I believe it will open up possibilities for innovations in the manufactured housing space that will help us finally realize the true, uh, potential for manufactured housing to, uh, increase the stock of homes all across the country. I, I assume you'd agree with that as well.

Yes. Yes. Yes, we, we've dipped our toe personally at, at, at my employer, um, on, on looking at manufactured housing and some of the, the technology and innovations are, are amazing and, and what would allow to do to just sort of smooth out the construction process, um, and make it predictable, um, and not at the whims of, of, of weather, um, would be great, would help things a lot, and, and I would say remove the stigma maybe that's attached to the manufactured housing space. Do you think that's achievable as well?

I do. Well, very good. Mr. Bayer, uh, in your testimony, you highlight that Nebraska, like other rural areas of our, uh, great country, lacks an adequate supply of material vendors, contractors, and subcontractors to successfully build new housing units. And certainly, I hear this, um, all across Tennessee. As you noted, this is a serious problem all across rural America. What steps can we take to increase the supply of these critically important skilled workers? And frankly, if you will speak to why is the normally I believe markets work. Why are markets not signaling adequately to, uh, cause those resources to come to bear?

Mr. Rose, thank you for the question. Um, I would tell you for me, it's a multi-prong approach. We have to, as a country, begin to embrace trade and vocational education as a first and foremost. We also have to uneducate parents that a trade occupation is a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful career that doesn't require a four-year college education that comes potentially with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. And so, as we make investments, we need to really focus our technical training onto helping young people understand and embrace those opportunities and those trades.

Well, I couldn't agree more. And our, our governor in Tennessee, Bill Lee, has done, I think, an exceptional job of focusing attention on career and technical education, what I call vocational education. Having been a product of that through agricultural education years ago, I can personally attest to the process of discovery that happens in our, uh, classrooms and helping expose young people to the many trades and maybe help them explore what careers might be of interest to them. For me, it ultimately led to a college degree and college education, but I still value very much the exposure I had to the trades as a vocational student back in the 1970s and 1980s. So, I agree with you on that. Are there other things we could do that would, um, cause the market to work in terms of attracting, uh, talented workers, skilled workers into these trades?

Well, I think part of that may be scholarship programs. It may be efforts to allow home programs to let community colleges or vocational schools actually build modulars on site. We have a number of our community colleges that build one to three to five units every year and then auction them off. And typically they bring more at or more than what the market value is of those of those units. So I think as we think about it, we just have to get much more creative and invest in those opportunities. Because I know a lot of my banks then partner with those community colleges to offer sort of a first-time in-house mortgage to go with that modular home that's built at the community college.

Thank you. I agree with everything you're saying and I want to just leave the panel with this thought. Um, I, I'm a farmer in a rural area and, uh, my quest in life has been to reassemble the, the original land grant that John and Anne Lancaster acquired from the, from the Revolutionary War. And I've, I've succeeded to some degree in that. But as, as I've done so, I acquired a number of farmsteads. So I, like many other larger farmers in my community, own a large number of empty houses, and we ought to figure out how we encourage and incentivize the owners of those abandoned rural houses, how to put them back into the housing stock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Miss Tlaib, is now recognized for five minutes. Uh, thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you all so much for being here. While my district isn't rural, I love my beautiful city of Detroit. Um, it does still face many of the same challenges plaguing rural communities, as you know, uh, no matter where you live. For example, we all have seen the vulnerability of our communities, um, because of climate disasters, from flooding to fires to heat waves. Um, uh, we know the climate crisis is here. In my district, flooding has been chronic. Um, and many of the homes, uh, are to many of my seasoned residents who don't have, you know, the fixed income, they don't have the capability of getting the basement cleaned up. Um, addressing even the increase, like we're hearing now more than ever, mold, uh, growing in people's homes in Wayne County, which is the largest county in my district, um, states, states of emergency have been declared, and I've been here since 2019. So 2019, 2021, 2023 disaster state emergencies declared for severe storms and flooding. According to FEMA's, uh, National Risk Index, Wayne County and Oakland County have five communities in Oakland County, uh, face risks from natural hazards greater than 96% of the U.S. Census tracks. While climate crisis can, you know, climate, uh, disasters can strike anywhere, um, research has directly tied, though, this is interesting, and I know my ranking member would find it interesting, tied the present-day climate risks to historic redlining practices. Um, redlined communities have suffered from reduced public and private investment, which, you know, you know that impacts again their ability to, to, um, not have like irreparable harm, making them again very much exposed to heat waves and flooding. Similarly, many rural communities have suffered from the same disinvestment, as you know, and the lack of resources and adaptive, uh, capacity. So, Mr. Lipet, you know, can you explain why historically disinvestment, disinvesting in communities, rural communities, communities like mine, um, um, you know, how it's made them even more vulnerable with the climate crisis?

Congresswoman Tlaib, thank you for your question. Um, and I would suggest that urban and rural markets have to be intertwined if this nation's going to work well. It undermines our long-term political and economic viability if we don't see the interests that we have that's shared across, uh, that geography. More specific to your question, um, places like, uh, Dearborn, Michigan, and others that are threatened by storms, I used to work for Congressman John Dingell, so I know a touch about Dearborn. So you know about Aviation Sub, which is that shore? Uh, beautiful Detroit neighborhood right up against Dearborn. So both of them, it was the first time I've seen both of the communities coming together and saying we got to do something about flooding. It, it's specifically what I'm thinking about for rural communities when disaster strikes like something like there. The unfortunate reality is FEMA is not structured to deploy to rural places. And so, if you take the disaster in North Carolina, where a hurricane, uh, thousands of miles away, uh, wiped out small towns and communities across the hills of North Carolina, FEMA's ability to deploy to those areas is shockingly poor compared to its disaster responses for large places. That's what we do as federal government, right? We're big. We come in, we plop down our thing, and it's one size fits all. And the ability for a federal agency, if they are going to accept the responsibilities for disaster recovery, to be able to deploy both its community assistance and its individual assistance to these small towns needs a very firm look. Otherwise, we're going to leave places, um, outside of major metro areas at tremendous risk for.

Yeah, you know, Detroit got some of the BRIC funding, you know, the, uh, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. It was really incredibly helpful. I mean, it wasn't a ton. I mean, people don't realize the $1 million. I mean, it's not even a dent into what is needed. And my district needs and relies, um, of course, on that federal partnership. Uh, earlier this year, when we did get the million dollars, there was a sense of hope among residents that we were actually going to try to address it. Can you speak about how shuttering the FEMA and programs like BRIC will impact ability for some of our communities? You know, I mentioned earlier, um, uh, redlining. Earlier, and now I feel like we're experiencing blue lining. I know my colleagues don't want to hear it, but that's what I'm experiencing. I feel like even with our community project funding, you know, ours got cut 70%, but when we were in the majority, we never cut their funding because Americans are Americans, no matter where they live, and the need is the need, no matter again their political affiliation. Um, so if you can talk a little bit about again the BRIC program and why that's important.

Um, so Congresswoman, that's not a program I'm familiar enough with. I do want to emphasize to my colleagues, we should stop blue lining. I, I really, many Americans have so many ties to each other. I just don't think one community should be hurt because of who they voted for. Thank you. I yield.

Gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Timmons, is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here after a crazy week in the financial services committee. Rural America is facing a growing housing crisis, but it is one we have the tools to fix. One of the clearest barriers to new development is the permitting process. Home builders back in South Carolina tell me that permitting delays alone can add up to $60,000 to the cost of building a single home. In rural areas, that's often enough to derail a project before it even begins. If we are serious about addressing the rural housing crisis, streamlining permitting must be a part of the solution. Mr. Garcia, what specific best practices should Congress consider promoting to reduce permitting related costs and encourage more private development in rural rural communities?

Thank you, Congressman. I think, um, there are two specific, uh, things that come to mind. The first is streamlining the requirements for specific federal programs that provide critical funding for affordable housing. I think, as we've heard earlier, many of the requirements, uh, while well-intended, can add significant, uh, cost through an extended project timeline. So that is a critical piece too. I think also, um, providing resources for localities to permit or to streamline their own permitting process is really critical. We have a lot of, um, municipalities that would really like to undertake the work of reforming, uh, the way that they, uh, plan and approve for housing, but they don't have the resources to do that, and I think that's particularly true in rural communities where, uh, the planning capacity is, uh, is not like in larger cities. So a lot of, um, municipalities are trying to encourage affordable housing, but they are kind of doing it through a patchwork framework that creates uncertainty, and when you don't know what the rules are and you start a project and they keep moving the goalposts, it's problematic.

So I guess my question is, you know, we have the National Flood Insurance Plan, which creates a framework through which people can create some sort of expectations. Do you think it would be helpful to have something similar, a menu of options that municipalities and local governments could use to try to create that best practice and create more certainty for, uh, potential developers?

Yes, I think that would be extremely helpful. Uh, uncertainty is a huge barrier to development in any community, and to the extent a community can make the rules clear and precise upfront, that will be a big, uh, help for getting more housing built.

Thank you for that. And to you, Mr. Moti, in your experience working with rural communities, how do, uh, permitting delays or regulatory complexity affect your ability to get new housing projects off the ground?

Thank you for the question. Um, yes, permitting delays, local approvals, whether it's water, sewer, tap fees, um, add a lot of uncertainty. Uh, sometimes the goalposts are moved where we're anticipating one set of fees, one set of review process, and we, we go to submit our, our plans, our specs, and move through it, and, and it changes. So it, it, it does create, um, a lot of delays, a lot of problems, and it's mostly all tied to uncertainty, as, as Mr. Garcia stated. Knowing, you know, knowing what something's going to be when we go in, uh, is, is paramount to, to our success. Um, and, and working with municipalities that, that understand that, uh, it would also be extremely helpful. You know, our country's seen an an incredible, um, opportunity using telehealth to reach rural communities that don't have access to good doctors. Is there a world in which we could use, I mean, telehealth inspections to, to streamline the permitting process, to streamline the inspection process? I mean, I'm not saying it would work in every circumstance, but after maybe a year of in-person inspections where, uh, the contractor, the subcontractor was able to show that they were competent, is there a world in which we could transition to predominantly using, uh, videos and submitting them to reduce travel time of inspectors and just streamline these processes? Mr. Moti, is that something that you think would work?

Yes, I, I do think that would work, and, and we're, we're seeing it work. Um, you know, following the pandemic, a lot of inspections went from being in person to being virtual, whether it was submitting videos, uh, to as simple as someone carrying their phone and facetiming or skyping with folks to show them the work that had been done. And, um, and those, those inspection, those review processes were, were just as efficient, if not more, than, uh, the in-person inspections. I don't think anything was lost when we, when we did that and continue to do. I mean, if somebody was incentivized to create a really good video that would cut down on travel time and allow someone to basically spend 15, 20 minutes, whereas a personal inspection would take hours. I just feel like that's a really easy streamline cost, uh, saving mechanism. And, I mean, delays, time is money, and if we could streamline that portion, I think it would be a step in the right direction. I'm out of time. I thank the witnesses for being here today. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Um, well, obviously you're well aware we have a situation where there's just many young adults who can't afford a down payment on a home, and, uh, builders are not necessarily incentivized to create enough starter homes or entry-level homes for younger generations to begin to build wealth. So, um, instead of the federal government being the answer to everything, I know there's some attempts at the local level, and I'd love to hear, uh, if you're aware of some of those. Um, the example I continue to cite is a Next Generation Housing Initiative. It's in Washington County, which is in my district in Wisconsin. It's a locally driven effort to expand affordable home ownership for middle-income families by developing about a thousand units, uh, of new owner-occupied homes by 2032. So, this is real. This is really happening right now. Uh, it was backed by $10 million, which was a county investment. The program provided infrastructure subsidies to developers and down payment assistance to buyers, up to $20,000 per home. And what it does is it sets kind of a clear affordability target. It requires that 40% of the homes, uh, be sold under $340,000, and all of them have to be under $420,000. All right. So, uh, I, I think there's some things we could do at the federal level to assist some of these types of programs to reduce development costs and expand housing options. The initiative, it also promotes, uh, zoning reforms, which talk to any Wisconsin home builder right now. It's a big part. We talked a little bit about the underground, uh, and everything, all the prep that needs to be done before a lot is ready to go. And then a public-private advisory group that oversees the effort. And there are some other options, too. There's some volunteerism that young couples can get engaged in if they want to, uh, if they want to earn some, uh, earn some of those credits. So, um, I think, uh, Mr. Maui, maybe do you have you heard of any of these types of programs or are you aware of anything that's being done at the local level that that is similar to this? Um, where I work, we, we focus solely on multifamily. So, I'm not as familiar with some of the, the, the single-family programs. There are some states we operate in that would have, will have a, a single-family state housing credit that, that folks can use, but as far as on my, my day-to-day and utilizing those programs, I, I have not.

Yeah, Mr. Garcia, are you aware of anything that, I, I know there was some stuff the last time we had a hearing, I think it was in May, there was some discussion about a program in Colorado that is very similar in some smaller mountainous towns. I know I think there are, um, a couple examples both at the state level and the local level where you have assistance for first-time home buyers or just home buyers in general. California has a statewide program called Dream for All. I think it's wildly oversubscribed, which tells you the need for something like down payment assistance, and I think there's, there's something to that. I think the challenge is without a commensurate increase in housing supply, um, you're not necessarily going to drive the cost of the housing down. So the down payment assistance is useful. We also need to think about, okay, we need to increase housing supply overall. And so to your point about, you know, no incentive to build say starter homes, this is where a lot of the zoning reform land use regulation changes come into play, where you, uh, zone and plan for smaller starter homes that we used to build pretty routinely. Those are the kinds of things that, uh, if we can get the market working right to provide those, those were going to be naturally more attainable, uh, than the kind of larger homes that we see going for, uh, kind of exorbitant prices today.

Right. Density should be our friend in many of these projects. Right. Not everybody can have a three-bedroom, two-bath home. A lot of, a lot of what is needed are these starter type homes. I was just going to ask, uh, Mr. Buyer, do you see a role for, and have you experienced as, uh, in the banking industry, uh, a role for financial institutions on this front?

Well, I appreciate the question. As I begin to think about my state, we are seeing partnerships. To your point, volume is really where we're at in terms of keeping costs down and providing the supply of homes. Uh, we currently under our rural workforce housing program have, uh, four different towns that have literally contracted with one townhouse developer because there was not enough demand in one community. But what they're then literally pooling their resources and saying, my community will guarantee 12, my community will guarantee 20. And this developer now is ready to embrace 40 to 60 townhomes in a very rural area. And so we think that that volume is important. Uh, our banks are coupling that with again, low-interest loans or first-time home buyer loans as part of that process. Uh, you know, I applaud the work that you've done with the Acre Act, which would again provide another tool to help with lower cost mortgages. I think there's a lot of opportunities out there to build volume and keep costs down. Thank you for being here. I yield back.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Miss Presley, is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver for this, uh, truly critical hearing. As I said many times before, housing is the number one issue I hear about from my constituents in the Massachusetts 7th, and I'm sure it's the same for all of my colleagues representing rural districts. Urban and rural housing issues, urban and rural housing issues are not opposites and not totally different. And when we talk about rural housing, we cannot ignore the ripple effects of public health crises such as the opioid epidemic and how they intersect with housing insecurity and incarceration. To illustrate this point, let me tell you two stories that on the surface may look different, but at their core are remarkably similar. A story not uncommon in major cities is that of Ameiliano, who lived in public housing his entire life. But after he served time for a nonviolent drug offense, he was barred from returning home. Unable to find employment due to his record, he started his own business and began the difficult journey of rebuilding his life. But every time he applied for housing, his record shut the door in his face. Despite doing everything right, he lacks stable housing and has to stay with different relatives, couch surfing. He served his punishment, but he was still being penalized for no legitimate reason. And in rural districts, there are stories like Maria, a mother of two who became addicted to opioids after a workplace injury. She was convicted for a possession charge and never served time. But in her small town, there are only a few landlords, and they use third-party screening services that automatically flag anyone with a record. Like Ameiliano, she was shut out before she even got a fair chance with no place to go. Her kids were placed into foster care, and she had to live in her car trying to fight addiction while rebuilding from nothing. These stories, one urban, one rural, are playing out all over the country. The opioid crisis, mass incarceration crisis, and the housing crisis are not separate issues. They are deeply connected. This is why I introduced the Housing First Act to ensure old or irrelevant criminal records do not deny people who are trying to reenter society and rebuild their lives to provide them with ability to access housing. Uh, Mr. Lipet, in your view, would improving access to housing for people with criminal records, including those recovering from opioid addiction, reduce recidivism and improve community stability?

Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. If, uh, at the beginning of this hearing, Chairman Flood gave a perfect description of how houses like us sitting here don't need to be in the business of who's moving into the unit. We need to provide excellent units, high quality, and if they're coming in with a record of having served time or other issues, that's not our business. That's overregulation and overreach by the federal government. We need to be able to equally house folks who are coming in to our front doors without asking us, as, as the owners or financers of these properties, anything about that personal record. I would gladly house the families that you're talking about in the units we work. Um, and we are, we're able to as a CDFI unless there are other, um, public monies in the program or in the property. Um, that's not my business. I'm a houser, and every single American who knocks on the front door who needs a place to live, that's my job.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Lipet, have you seen models of public housing agencies or nonprofits partnering with treatment or re-entry programs to implement this kind of supportive housing approach?

Yeah, not for my current work, but a previous employer, uh, I did see the Oakland Housing Authority partnering with its county, uh, to do re-entry programs, being able to set aside some of its, uh, Section 8 public housing units for that use specifically was an extraordinarily, uh, well-received program in the city of Oakland and functional for the families, uh, that had someone coming back ahead of household who had been incarcerated to reunite with children. Um, but it's not a rural story, I'm telling you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, so the point is, if we don't make safe and affordable housing accessible to people who are trying to get back on their feet, uh, overcome their drug addiction, and just provide for their families, we're just reinforcing the cycle of homelessness and incarceration. Sam agrees. My Housing First Act offers a pathway to treat people with dignity and to break this vicious cycle in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Thank you. And I yield back.

Thank you. Hello. Good afternoon. I would like to recognize myself, Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz. I am, I have the honor of representing a rural district in deep South Texas on the border, McAllen. And, uh, housing is something of great importance not only because it is a rural community but also because of the economic challenges that we have down there. Um, I am committed to finding affordable housing solutions for the people in my district and really for across the country. South Texas is seeing innovative building solutions. As you know, the population of Texas is increasing by leaps and bounds. And so, we're looking for low-cost solutions. There's a Starbucks locally that's opened a 3D printed building, a 3D printed Starbucks. It's a low-cost modular, uh, low-cost modular homes are being constructed in rural areas by nonprofits, Come Dream Come Build, in partnership with multiple U.S. banks, and there is the largest 3D neighborhood nearing completion in the state of Texas. These are innovative solutions to our building and housing challenges. My question is for Mr. Garcia. What do you see as the largest obstacle private companies face when seeking to deliver low-cost innovative housing solutions like modular or 3D printed homes to our rural communities?

Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I think there's a few challenges that, uh, off-site or industrialized, uh, construction builders face. Um, the first is many times local rules or regulations do not allow for that kind of housing to be sited in specific neighborhoods. And so you may have a zoning regulation that forbids any type of manufactured housing that may be rooted in kind of a, um, kind of outdated view of what manufactured housing really is or looks like. And those would be local policies.

Correct. Those are local. Yes. I would say we mentioned this earlier, but there are some outdated rules at HUD that we should be, uh, examining and revising as well. There was mention of, uh, the permanent steel chassis rule that if we were to remove that, would reduce, uh, cost and time to build manufactured housing pretty significantly, and particularly in places where you have high cost of housing, those kinds of changes can be really impactful to bring more affordable housing.

And for the American public that's listening right now, what is the chassis rule?

So, the chassis rule is essentially a rule by HUD that says that any home that's built, uh, that's manufactured needs to have a steel chassis, uh, to be permanently, or if it's not going to be permanently affixed, so that it can be moved, even though the vast majority of manufactured homes, they, they never move once they're sited. And so we have an unnecessarily unnecessary amount of extra materials that go into a manufactured home that really don't need to be there.

What is the percentage of manufactured homes that actually move?

Uh, I think it's pretty low. I don't have a statistic off the top of my head, but, uh, it is, it is shockingly low.

Thank you. Um, we need to continue to innovate and find solutions to the challenges that our rural housing communities are facing. Uh, data from the National Association of Realtors shows we're only building one new home for every two new jobs created nationally. And this ratio is often worse in rural communities. Meanwhile, rural housing development faces unique infrastructure challenges, including inadequate roads, utilities, and broadband access, plus higher, higher per-unit construction costs due to smaller project scales. Um, Mr. Dr. Garcia, again, what specific federal programs or policy changes would you recommend to make rural housing construction economically viable for developers?

Thank you for the question. I think to make more projects economically viable, we really just need to look at the cost of construction. As we noted earlier, um, you know, costs of construction are high across the country, but are, are particularly, um, I would say harmful in rural communities where it costs more to bring materials to the sites. It costs more to source, uh, labor and contractors. And, uh, so anything we can do to bring down materials and labor costs is going to be really important to making those projects work better.

Thank you. I yield back. And I now recognize the gentleman from Montana. Mr. Downing is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I, uh, thank, uh, uh, the chairman for, uh, putting this together. I really appreciate the constructive dialogue today on barriers to rural housing development. Uh, just a couple of stats. You know, Montana, Montana's second congressional district that I represent is the largest by land mass after Alaska. So, we, we've got a lot of dirt and a lot of long roads. And a couple of things I, I've talked about this in this, uh, committee, you know, in the past, but I really think about the path to ownership being that, you know, fundamental part of the American dream. And I think of the limiting factors there. And I talked to folks about the small amount of increase in building a home and how many potential buyers that even a small modest increase prices out of the market, how important that is. And something that really, you know, sticks in my mind is the, you know, the 24% of the current average single-family home sale prices from regulations, you know, across all levels of government. So things, things that I think about. But I'm going to, um, shift gears here for a second because I'd like to focus my initial questions on communities that are frequently left out of these discussions. Um, those are tribal communities. You, Montana is home to, uh, seven federally recognized, uh, Indian reservations, and each one plays a critical role to the local community and culture. And Native American residents of Montana, especially those living on reservations, experience significantly lower home ownership, uh, up to 12% lower than Montana's overall population. So, I'm going to start with Mr. Garcia. Can you describe the unique challenges that, uh, Native Americans face when it comes to home ownership?

Thank you for the question, Congressman. Uh, some of the unique challenges include, uh, pretty significant rates of poverty. And so when you have that kind of, uh, impoverishment in any community, it's going to be difficult for them to not just pay the rent, but save any sort of money to make a down payment and build wealth. Um, I think the other challenge, um, that they, uh, can face is just access to, to credit and, and financing sources that's just not available to the communities, uh, in, uh, tribal communities like they are to the broader public.

Uh, thank you. Uh, Mr. Lipstets, do you have anything to add to that?

Uh, thank you, Congressman. Yeah, we, we've actually worked with the Northern Cheyenne tribe in your district quite a bit, and it is access to credits, not just the, the regulatory costs that you were mentioning, 24%, which I think everybody here, uh, finds a challenge with that, but the cost of capital delivered to the reservation without a well-structured banking environment or a lot of financial services is going to cost the individual family more. One of the few ways that I've seen that addressed well is there's a very strong network of Native CDFIs that can derisk that lending for private organizations. They're not trying to grab market share. They're bringing in a portion of the cost of the house to bring it down for the private lender, and being able to fund those Native CDFIs is a not small piece of the puzzle.

Thank you. Uh, back to Mr. Garcia. Uh, what combination of federal housing assistance and technical support can help rural Native communities leverage private sector investments?

I don't know that I have a good answer to that question. Um, I would defer back to some of my colleagues on that. Uh, Mr. Lipets, I'm sorry, sir. Could you repeat the question?

What combination of federal housing assistance and technical support can help rural Native communities leverage private sector investments?

Um, well, it, as housers, it is the hardest, um, uh, part of the portfolio to support native housing on reservation is extraordinarily expensive and challenging. There is a piece in the Rural Housing Service Reform Act, uh, sponsored by Senator Rounds and Senator Smith, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would take USDA's 502 direct program, take a portion of the funding for that and lend it to the tribe. The tribe itself then can make the loan to the individual, uh, organ, uh, individual household on the ground. And they have done this successfully in a demonstration program. If RHS reform Act moves, I strongly recommend, uh, that being one of the principles in there because folks like Northern Cheyenne and others can actually then access a loan from a trusted lender on reservation.

Thank you. Um, in my last seconds here, I'm going to switch gears to housing more generally. I'd go to Mr. Byer. What role can public-private partnerships play in addressing rural housing shortages? And what are some effective models you've seen that align private capital with local or regional development goals?

Great. Thank you for the question. And I think a lot of it first and foremost is on lot development, making sure we have a place to place homes in terms of public-private partnerships, and then also developing those partnerships between you and local developers and, uh, the various tools we've talked about at the state level and eliminating friction, uh, that exists because right now it's almost impossible because of the friction to make them doable. Right.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I've run out of time. So, Madam Chair, I yield.

Thank you. The gentlewoman from Colorado, Miss Patterson, is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to everybody for being here today. My name is Brittany Patterson. I represent Colorado's 7th Congressional District. This is Sam. Hopefully, he's good throughout this, uh, testimony, but I, uh, really appreciate the conversation on an issue that's so important to my state, uh, to all of us across the country. But in Colorado, we're dealing with, uh, unique challenges as we've seen climate continue to increase costs for insurance, and because of the, uh, climate disasters that have been coming throughout Colorado, increase wildfires and hail. This is Davis. He's not being as good as the baby here, buddy. And, uh, so our state is being hit with not just an under supply of housing, but also the rising insurance costs. We've seen that some people are unable to get insurance at all. And so in the short, right now, we're actually 100,000 homes short from what's needed, and the premiums for insurance are nearly up 60%. The number one driver is from hail damage. Um, so we know we're seeing this crisis across the country, and nationally prices have surged nearly 50%, and rent is up over 25% over the last five years. So unfortunately, instead of actually addressing these challenges, the Trump administration has delayed housing funding, undermined the HUD's tasks with housing assistance, and the president has proposed slashing housing investments across the country. This would be devastating to Colorado and our urban communities, but also especially our rural communities. We've also seen an increase in costs because of the instability with tariffs and the rising costs there as well. So, Mr. Lipet, as we've seen more extreme climate-driven natural disasters across the country, and unfortunately, the move to eliminate the BRIC program, which is invest in pre-disaster mitigation and strengthens our resiliency, I since I led a letter, you know, opposing this and demanding an answer and still haven't received anything from the administration on their move to do this, I, can you please answer, I, to take a stab at it since we haven't heard back, and what opportunities the BRIC program provided and how important it is?

Uh, well, as I said to, uh, your colleague from Michigan, uh, just a bit ago, the BRIC program is not something I have expertise in. Um, it's not a program I know well. I know that most of the work we do at the federal level, we don't have a lot of regulatory control over insurance and insurance costs, but that the borrowers that we work with, um, are facing much higher increases than you just described because it's mostly in the multifamily sector, are facing significant costs from that. Our effort, uh, at the federal level has been more for resiliency. We've called for better, uh, per-unit funding for programs so that we can get ahead of disaster, so that we can make the homes more resilient and be able to work with the insurance companies to bring that cost down. But BRIC is again, not a, not a program I know well.

Well, thank you for answering that. I, I know it's important when we look at building resiliency and how we're building new types of homes and, and thinking about things differently with climate change. And the Trump administration's budget proposal eliminates a majority of rural housing programs, including Section 502, the single-family direct loans, the Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help Housing grants, and the 523 land development loans, which is alarming to me when I think about the challenges some of my mountain communities are facing, when we've seen an increase in, uh, people moving there as they're able to work remotely, and people who have lived there their entire lives being unable to stay in their communities. So, can you speak on the effectiveness of these housing programs and the impacts for our rural communities?

Uh, I would love to. The, the proposal in the president's budget would be devastating for rural communities, uh, to zero out the programs that are funding some of the only development happening in those towns, would be an unconscionable move, uh, for those folks. Uh, I, I have to commend the House, uh, and the leadership in the House now, of the, the mark that you guys put together for the budget restoring some of those, uh, programs. So, thank you very much. Breathe a small sigh of relief. Hopefully, we're not talking about zeroing out one of the only, some of the only production and preservation programs, uh, that, uh, Colorado families and others, uh, are depending on, specific to the 502 direct program. This is an extraordinarily effective program where you're taking families at some of the lowest credit score levels with modest income, putting them into home ownership for only about $9,000 per unit for a lifetime.

Time has expired. Oh, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for your comments. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Nunn is recognized for five minutes. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this, and thank you very much for the panel being here talking on a very important issue, affordable housing, particularly rural affordable housing in places like Iowa. Iowa, like much of America, faces a growing affordable housing crisis. Nearly 40% of Iowans spend at least a third of their overall take-home salary just on being able to afford a place to live. And it's not that expensive, my friends. In Iowa, our rural communities are already grappling with population decline and economic strain, risk of losing the very housing that keeps seniors, families, working Iowans, farmers rooted in our most rural communities. And my constituents are not asking for a handout. Let's be clear. They're asking for a fair chance to live where their parents and their grandparents worked, where they worshiped, where they start a new life. Modernizing USDA's delivery system, expanding loan terms from 2 to 5 years, and allowing funding for site development activities like surveying and design. These reforms don't represent radical ideas, they represent common sense. They help us root out fraud, and they advance meaningful reform. We recognize this common sense in Iowa, which is why I've worked with my friend across the aisle, Ranking Member Cleaver, here on delivering bipartisan reforms to USDA's rural housing program. And so, Mr. Libson, I'm going to turn to you. I know you're the Democrat's witness, but I think we are looking for comprehensive bipartisan solutions here. One of the programs we're reviewing is Section 515, which just happens to be the area code for rural Iowa and Des Moines. A program that Iowa adopted earlier. Today, the state manages about 180 properties and more than 3,600 apartment units under this program. These properties provide critical housing in towns where no other affordable housing option exists, but we're losing them, and we're losing them quick. When you work with many of these properties that you're working with today, what challenges do you see in recapitalizing them?

Thank you for your question, uh, Congressman, and I think, um, as you may have heard throughout this hearing, uh, you'd be hard-pressed to pick a Democratic or Republican witness out. Uh, it might have been who invited us, but there's been an extraordinary amount of continuity across. In the same way that your work with Congressman Cleaver represents, uh, Strategy Investment in Rural Housing Act, it lays out an authorization for programs that are needed for that capitalization. You're authorizing $200 million a year for the MPR program at USDA, which would do exactly what you just called for. Um, you would, if we gain the support of the rest of the members around. Um, that bill also does one of the most fundamental elements you could do for the multifamily housing programs at USDA, which is to decouple rental assistance from the mortgage. The moment you pay your last mortgage payment, you have lost your ability to get that very modest subsidy to continue to house folks who are in the building today. Decouple the two. Allow for the rental assistance to continue, and you have helped a small business person in Iowa or someone else whose business just happens to be owning property and renting it out to continue to work. Without that reform, the 380,000 units that remain are gone in 20 years. My organization has done that analysis. Two years from now, 2027, the rate of decline of the program is going to skyrocket. It's crisis time. Like, we need action on that. And a lot of it shows up in the Strategy and Investment in Rural Housing Act, uh, that you've been involved with. And I'm thrilled to see you, uh, pushing that agenda.

Mr. Lipset, thank you. And I think you're absolutely right. This is a crisis we can avert if we start working on it today. And again, I want to say thank you to the bipartisan effort on this. Mr. Ma, I'll turn to you. The work that you have done as well. One of the challenges that I think we've noted here is outdated technology and limited USDA staffing, undermining the government's ability to track compliance, waste, fraud, and abuse, and then USDA becomes a, you know, roadblock for a lot of this rather than an aid. Could you talk to us a little bit about what we could do to help fix the USDA challenges?

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Um, so yes, uh, RD is full of great people and great staff that care a lot about what they do. Um, they are certainly hampered by their outdated technology. Their IT is, no exaggeration, 35 to 40 years behind. Um, us as borrowers and owners can't simply go on and look at a loan balance. We have to contact someone to, to do that for us. Um, so one, investments in, in IT, investments in staff and training, uh, would go a long way to speed up the, the approval processes that we need to develop the housing that we build.

At CAR, we met with both USDA and HUD staff early this year and uh, and presented memos to them on ways to improve their their procedures and their and their their work that they do. And we we have submitted those to the committee for review. Thank you very much.

This is coming directly from my homeowners, my property builders in Iowa, as well as those who want to rent. Let's have a stronger going forward. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to join.

The gentleoman from Oregon is now recognized, Miss Binm for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, USDA Rural Housing Service and Federal Housing Administration programs serve as crucial lifelines for home ownership in rural America and rural communities face unique challenges with limited access to credit, which restricts funding options for potential home buyers. These federal programs also provide affordable financing options that wouldn't otherwise exist in many rural communities and I believe that we should look to find ways to strengthen these programs and not cut them so that they are reaching more families.

My question is for Mr. Lipitz. What specific improvements to USDA rural housing service and FHA programs would you recommend to better serve rural home buyers? and how can we streamline these programs to make them more accessible while ensuring they're adequately funded and staffed to meet growing demand in underserved rural markets?

Congresswoman, thank you for the question. Um, very specifically, uh, extend the loan terms of the 502 loan up to 40 years. Um, to help more households qualify, allow USDA to release 502 borrowers from liability when their loan has assumed or transferred to a new borrower. clarify for them that homeowners with a section 502 loan can operate inhome child care centers and the other things which are very common in rural places. We use our homes for many things including our small businesses allow for properties with existing ADUs to be eligible also uh for the 502 uh guarantee program. These are all common sense bipartisan reforms that um we just talked about the strategy and investment in rural housing preservation act uh which your ranking member uh and um colleague have supported. There is a rural housing service uh reform act which takes all of those principles and expands it to include the things I just listed for USDA's single family housing programs. This is often the only loan that's happening for rural homeowners to be able to use in some of these towns. Take those away and we're going to significantly reduce the number of homeowners in small towns building generational wealth and housing their families in a decent manner. Thank you.

Also, my second question, Mr. Lipit says President Trump's proposed budget cuts to the USDA by $7 billion and the Department of Housing and Urban Development by $33 billion. Do you think that this will make these programs more effective at helping to lower the cost of housing or less?

Uh, thank you for your question. Um, far less. Um what we do as rural housing folks is we are seeding uh local economies with um housing preservation and production that allows the private market to grow. These are places where the private market is not functioning well and needs a bit of gas in the tank through CDFIs, through the programs at USDA and HUD. If you can get that dollar to a a local community, the members in car who's next to me can take those and use them as private owners to continue to develop. But right now, the level of dysfunction um in some of these local economies are not allowing them to move forward. If you take that little by the uh prospect of the whole federal government, if you take that little bit of subsidy out, you're never going to build a private market to function there. And you're certainly not going to house the folks who are there today who need it right now.

So, do you expect rural home buyers um would be benefited by cuts to programs designed to address rural housing affordability issues?

Certainly not. And I commend the House on their mark uh of having restored many of those programs uh compared to the president's budget. It's it was a bold move on your part and much appreciated from small town perspective. Thank you.

Um, I think, uh, Madame Chair, it's critical that we use our responsibility as members sitting on this committee to examine the root causes of why less and less people, especially younger Americans and people in rural areas, believe that the path to home ownership is becoming unattainable. And I think everyone on this committee can agree that we're going through a housing crisis in this country. And when the cost of building and buying a home is at record highs, we should be bolstering home ownership and home building programs, not cutting them. So, let's make owning a home attainable an attainable goal for all Americans. And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written requests for the witnesses to the chair. The questions will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. Witnesses, please respond no later than July 17th, 2025. This hearing is now adjourned.