Two Bills, One Deadline: How Congress Is Navigating Housing Reform Heading into 2026

As Congress begins its 2026 legislative session, lawmakers continue negotiating how to fund Federal housing and homelessness programs amid a looming continuing resolution (CR) deadline of January 30, 2026, and an agreement between the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations committees for lower total funding in FY 26. Unless appropriations bills are enacted by the deadline, another CR or omnibus funding package will be needed to prevent lapses in funding. Both the House and Senate have signaled bipartisan interest in advancing major housing reforms and are approaching these priorities through two overlapping legislative vehicles, reflecting both shared goals and ongoing committee and institutional differences.

One of the most significant developments in late 2025 was the release of the final draft of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — the must-pass defense policy bill – which ultimately excluded provisions of the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act that had previously passed the Senate as part of its version of the defense bill. The Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act (S. 2651), championed by Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), had garnered unanimous committee support and included an array of housing reform provisions aimed at boosting supply, streamlining regulatory reviews, and modernizing programs. However, in negotiations with the House, these provisions were omitted from the final NDAA text after House leaders, including Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR), noted that sufficient support for the package did not exist from House Republicans.

Housing advocates and some Members of Congress have criticized the exclusion, arguing that the ROAD package represented the most significant bipartisan housing reform effort in over a decade. Senate leadership has insisted the fight is not over, and key supporters have pledged to advance the core ideas of ROAD through other legislative channels in 2026.

In response to the exclusion of ROAD from the NDAA and as part of the House’s effort to put forward its own comprehensive housing reform agenda, the House Financial Services Committee introduced the Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644) in December 2025. This bipartisan bill, sponsored by Chairman French Hill (R-Ark.), Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and others, is structured to increase housing supply, modernize federal programs, and reduce regulatory barriers across a range of areas, including HOME program reform, CDBG amendments, streamlined reviews, planning grants, and manufactured housing innovations.

While the Housing for the 21st Century Act includes numerous provisions that overlap with the Senate’s ROAD to Housing Act, it also reflects the House’s own legislative priorities and committee prerogatives. For example, the Housing for the 21^st Century Act includes provisions that are not in the ROAD to Housing Act, such as additional reporting requirements for regulatory barriers and competitive grant programs for local planning. On the other hand, the ROAD to Housing Act includes expanded incentives tied to transit-oriented development and broader Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) reforms that do not appear in the Housing for the 21st Century Act.

The result is two similar but distinct bipartisan housing proposals emerging from the two chambers, each drawing on overlapping baskets of previously introduced bills and committee work. The existence of two vehicles instead of a single unified bill reflects typical congressional dynamics: different committee jurisdictions (House Financial Services vs. Senate Banking), different strategic approaches to policy packaging, and differing institutional interests in shaping a comprehensive housing legislative offer for 2026.

Looking ahead, if both chambers pass their respective housing bills, the next step would likely be bicameral negotiations to reconcile differences. This could occur through a conference process or an informal working group composed of representatives from both committees, tasked with finding common ground on language and policy priorities. Since neither version has been enacted yet, both serve as models for what comprehensive housing reform might look like in a bipartisan Congress.

Another important avenue for advancing elements of these bills is through the FY 2026 THUD (Transportation, Housing and Urban Development) appropriations bill, which will set funding levels and potentially policy riders for HUD programs. With the current CR set to expire on January 30, appropriators may consider adding select housing reform provisions into the THUD package or a larger omnibus appropriations vehicle, particularly if broader standalone bills do not reach the president’s desk early in the year. This strategy has precedent in past Congresses, where appropriations bills have carried policy reforms when stand-alone legislation stalled.

While the exclusion of the ROAD to Housing Act from the NDAA was a setback for housing, the Housing for the 21st Century Act and continued Senate interest in comprehensive reform signal continued determination by lawmakers to pursue bipartisan solutions through multiple legislative routes. Meanwhile, the calendar pressure of the January 30 CR deadline underscores the urgency of finalizing HUD funding and provides negotiators with a deadline to seek compromise on both spending and policy reforms. As each chamber charts its path, stakeholders will be watching closely for opportunities to shape the next generation of federal housing policy.