Bring Down Housing Costs Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6008
Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

ID: H001090

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The "Bring Down Housing Costs Act" - a title that screams "We're doing something, but don't worry, it's just for show."

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to create a task force (because what we really need is another bureaucratic entity) to oversee states with rising housing costs. The task force will identify best practices and recommend them to states, because apparently, states are incapable of figuring this out on their own.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a 21-member task force, comprising an assortment of politicians, bureaucrats, and "experts" from the private sector. The task force will meet quarterly, produce reports, and make recommendations. Oh, and it'll have a chairperson and vice chairperson - because leadership is crucial when it comes to accomplishing absolutely nothing.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: states with rising housing costs (i.e., most of them), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, various federal agencies, and private sector entities that will inevitably find ways to profit from this farce. Oh, and let's not forget the local community organizations that will be "impacted" by this bill - code for "will receive a few token grants to keep them quiet."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo." It creates the illusion of action while accomplishing nothing meaningful. The task force will produce reports, make recommendations, and maybe even hold some hearings. But at the end of the day, housing costs will continue to rise, and this bill will be nothing more than a footnote in the annals of congressional ineptitude.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician's Disease" - a condition characterized by an inability to address real problems, instead opting for symbolic gestures and bureaucratic busywork. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes for what they are - a joke.

In short, this bill is a waste of time, money, and resources. But hey, at least it'll give politicians something to talk about during their next campaign speeches.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties Small Business & Entrepreneurship Federal Budget & Appropriations Congressional Rules & Procedures State & Local Government Affairs National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Transportation & Infrastructure Government Operations & Accountability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$134,500
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$6,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$128,200

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$3,300
2
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$2,000
3
CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
MIRANDA, LAUREL
1 transaction
$6,600
2
ELSON, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
3
GOODMAN, COREY
1 transaction
$6,600
4
SCHMIDT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600
5
BROWN, SHELLEY
1 transaction
$6,600
6
KOSHLAND, DOUGLAS
1 transaction
$6,600
7
DUFFY, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$6,600
8
MANDEL, STEVE
1 transaction
$6,600
9
MANDEL, SUE
1 transaction
$6,600
10
DELANEY, MARY QUINN
1 transaction
$6,600
11
REED, JANINE
1 transaction
$6,600
12
JORDAN, WAYNE D
1 transaction
$6,600
13
DWYER, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
14
MACEIRA, ANTHONY
1 transaction
$6,600
15
GURAL, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$6,600
16
BLOOM, BECCA
1 transaction
$6,000
17
KIND, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$5,800
18
COWAN, DAVID
1 transaction
$5,800
19
CHEN, ERIC
1 transaction
$5,800
20
AVEDON, ROGER
1 transaction
$5,800

Donor Network - Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 24 nodes and 25 connections

Total contributions: $134,500

Top Donors - Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs20 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 58.3%
Pages: 536-538

— 504 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Reverse HUD’s mission creep over nearly a century of program implementation dating from the Department’s New Deal forebears. HUD’s new political leadership team will need to reexamine the federal government’s role in housing markets across the nation and consider whether it is time for a “reform, reinvention, and renewal”1 that transfers Department functions to separate federal agencies, states, and localities. OVERVIEW HUD was created by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 19652 and since then has administered several programs that had been administered by the Housing and Home Finance Agency. With a proposed fiscal year (FY) budget authority totaling $71.9 billion and 8,326 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees,3 it remains the largest government agency charged with implementing federal housing policy. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, D.C., HUD has 10 regional offices as well as field offices and centers to implement specialized operational and enforcement responsibilities.4 HUD program offices also interface with various networks of implementing organizations such as locally chartered public housing agencies (PHAs) and federal, state, and local government and judicial bodies as well as such private industry participants as mortgage lenders. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can delegate authority to various entities across an array of HUD programs.5 The Secretary also oversees the Office of the Deputy Secretary;6 the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA);7 the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU);8 and the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (CFBNP).9 The Office of the Secretary also comprises a team of politically appointed positions and career support staff. Each of the following offices should be headed by political appointees except where otherwise noted. l Office of Administration, headed by the Chief Administration Officer. The Office of Administration has responsibilities for the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHO, headed by the Chief Human Capital Officer, currently a career position) and the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO, headed by the Chief Procurement Officer, currently a career position). l Office of the Chief Financial Officer, headed by the Chief Financial Officer. l Office of the Chief Information Officer, headed by the Chief Information Officer. — 505 — Department of Housing and Urban Development l Office of Public Affairs, headed by a Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary (AS) or Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS). l Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (CIR), headed by a Senate-confirmed AS or PDAS. l Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), headed by a Senate-confirmed AS or Principal DAS. CPD administers various entitlement and non-entitlement programs across community development, disaster recovery, and housing for the homeless10 and individuals with special needs, including Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The two largest CPD-administered programs are the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program,11 which includes disaster recovery funding, and the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME).12 CPD’s Relocation and Real Estate Division (RRED) has departmental delegated authority for the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.13 l Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), headed by a Senate- confirmed AS or PDAS. PIH administers public housing and tenant-based rental assistance programs, as well as authorities for Native American and Native Hawaiian housing assistance and loan guarantee programs under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHSDA).14 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance represents the major portion of HUD’s nonemergency discretionary budget. HUD describes its Housing Choice Voucher Program as “an essential component of the Federal housing safety net for people in need.”15 PIH also implements funding for the Self- Sufficiency Coordinator Program; the Public Housing Fund (operating and capital funds for PHA administration of Section 9 public housing and Section 8 voucher programs); and Choice Neighborhoods (zeroed out during the Trump Administration budget request but included in HUD’s FY 2023 budget, which requests $250 million for the program).16 l Office of Housing and Federal Housing Administration (FHA), headed by a dual-hatted, Senate-confirmed AS and Federal Housing Commissioner or Acting Federal Housing Commissioner. The Office of Housing oversees implementation of the department’s project-based rental assistance (PBRA) multifamily housing portfolio, Section 202 supportive housing for the elderly program, Section 811 program for disabled persons’ housing, and Housing Counseling Assistance program. The Federal Housing Administration administers the Mutual Mortgage Insurance

Introduction

Low 57.2%
Pages: 652-654

— 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA); — 621 — Department of Transportation l Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS); l Maritime Administration (MARAD); l Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and l Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). DOT’s fundamental problem is that instead of being able to focus on providing Americans with affordable and abundant transportation, it has become saddled with congressional requirements that reduce the department to a de facto grant- making organization. Yet there is little need for much of this grantmaking, for two reasons: l New technology enables private companies to charge for transportation in many areas, which could transform how innovation is financed. It is vital to consider the role of user fees and other pricing innovations with regard to transportation infrastructure. Airport landing fees for aircraft, toll charges on roads and bridges, and per-gallon taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are all examples of user charges that affect the decisions of transportation system users. These changes could shift our nation’s transportation away from being a top–down system that is misaligned with the needs of so many Americans. Increasing private-sector financing could revolutionize travel and increase everyday mobility to its greatest potential in a way that Americans prefer. Doing so would keep transportation decisions out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who are far removed from local problems and preferences. l If funding must be federal, it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best. Such an approach would enable states to prioritize different types of transportation according to the needs of their citizens. States that rely more on automotive transportation, for example, could use their funding to meet those needs. Meanwhile, many Americans continue to confront serious challenges with their day-to-day transportation, including costs that have increased dramati- cally in recent years. DOT in its current form is insufficiently equipped to address those problems. DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abol- ished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states, which know best their transportation needs and are incentivized to think of the

Introduction

Low 57.1%
Pages: 40-42

— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.