Andy Harris

Marylanders are experiencing the same rising home costs as communities across America. Homeownership is increasingly out of reach, rent continues to climb and employers across our state are struggling to attract workers because housing has become too expensive. We need more homes, but big government regulations and grants are not the answer. That’s where I’m going to disagree with the commentary by Torrey Snow (“Andy Harris’ disappointing vote against housing reform,” July 1). And that’s why I opposed the final version of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

Mr. Snow suggested that voting against this legislation was a vote against affordable housing. That misunderstands both the problem and the legislation itself. No one disputes that America needs more housing. The real question is how we increase supply and make it affordable (not subsidized). Lasting affordability comes from making it easier for private companies to build more homes — not by continuing to expand an expensive federal housing framework that has existed for decades without solving the problem.

For more than half a century, the federal government has expanded its role in housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was created in the 1960s. Community Development Block Grants (CBDGs) followed in the 1970s. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program has operated for decades. During that same period, housing became steadily less affordable. In 2026, roughly 75% of homes for sale are considered unaffordable for the typical U.S. household. If expanding Washington’s role were the answer, homeownership would be more attainable and more affordable today — not less.

Yet this legislation moves in the opposite direction.

Instead of asking whether existing programs are delivering results, Congress piles new spending and new funding streams onto an already fragmented system. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program already finances housing construction. This bill expands Section 8 housing, while creating yet another $200 million annual grant program attempting to achieve the same goal as already existing CBDGs. Rather than eliminating duplication or simplifying housing policy, it adds another layer of bureaucracy. Success should be measured by one thing: whether more homes get built — not by how many grant programs Washington creates.

The bill also expands programs that every Trump administration budget proposed eliminating because of longstanding concerns about waste, duplication and federal overreach. Programs such as CDBGs have too often funded projects that are better prioritized by states and local communities. Housing markets are local. Decisions about development should be driven by local needs — not by Washington.

While the bill includes some regulatory relief, it stops well short of the broader reforms needed to increase housing supply. Changes in the bill apply only to certain HUD-assisted housing projects. The private builders responsible for constructing most of America’s housing supply still face the same permitting delays, regulatory hurdles (including regulatory hurdles here in Maryland) and bureaucratic obstacles that have slowed construction and increased its cost. And mortgage rates won’t go down until government debts and deficits go down — since the housing market competes for borrowing with the federal government.

At its core, this legislation embraces the same governing philosophy that has dominated federal housing policy for decades: When housing becomes less affordable, Washington should create another program, another grant or another funding stream. That philosophy has produced more bureaucracy, not more affordable housing.

America does not have a shortage of housing programs. It has a shortage of housing.

The answer is not another layer of HUD bureaucracy or another Washington grant program. It is removing unnecessary regulations, speeding up permitting, reducing the cost of construction and allowing private builders to respond to demand. More homes — not more bureaucracy — are the path to lower housing costs.

The Road to Housing Act fails this. It will not bring about meaningful change.