Statement For the Record National Low-Income Housing Coalition
Introduction
National low-income housing remains the most urgent and underserved segment of America’s residential infrastructure, according to a comprehensive statement submitted by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.
Presented on March 4, 2025, this testimony provides a definitive analysis of why market-based solutions alone cannot resolve the crisis for the nation's poorest renters. The document serves as a vital resource for understanding the systemic failures in national low-income housing policy. It outlines specific legislative remedies required to prevent further homelessness and economic instability.Defining the Crisis in National Low-Income Housing
To understand the scope of the challenge, one must first understand how the NLIHC defines the population in need. The statement explicitly focuses on "extremely low-income" (ELI) households, defined as those earning no more than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or the federal poverty limit, whichever is greater. This distinction is critical because while general affordability issues affect many Americans, the crisis in national low-income housing is uniquely severe for this demographic.
The data presented illustrates a stark disparity. Three out of four ELI renters—74% in total—are severely cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than half of their monthly income on rent and utilities. In contrast, only 3% of middle-income renters face this level of financial precarity. This gap underscores that the current shortage of National low-income housing is not merely a market fluctuation but a structural failure that disproportionately impacts seniors, people with disabilities, and low-wage workers.
The Shortage by the Numbers
The NLIHC statement quantifies the deficit with alarming precision. There is a national shortage of 7.3 million affordable, available homes for the lowest-income renters. To visualize this scarcity, the report notes that for every 10 lowest-income renter households, there are fewer than four affordable apartments available.
This shortage is universal; no state or congressional district in the country has an adequate supply of National low-income housing. Even in states cited directly to lawmakers, such as Nebraska and Missouri, the ratio hovers between three and four available units per ten needy households.
Consequently, 10 million of the nation’s lowest-income households pay at least half their income toward rent, leaving them perpetually vulnerable to eviction and homelessness due to minor financial emergencies.
Systemic Causes Behind National Low-Income Housing Instability
The testimony identifies two primary systemic drivers fueling the collapse of National low-income housing stability: stagnant incomes relative to rising costs and a fundamental market failure in supply production.
The Wage-Rent Mismatch
A central component of the NLIHC’s argument is the "Housing Wage," a metric estimating the hourly earnings required to afford modest rental housing without exceeding 30% of income. In 2024, the national Housing Wage for a two-bedroom apartment was $32.11 per hour, and $26.74 for a one-bedroom unit. These figures vastly exceed both the federal minimum wage of $7.25 and the median wages of many common occupations.
In fact, fourteen of the twenty most common U.S. occupations pay less than the housing wage for a modest rental home. With 64 million people employed in these roles, including retail workers, nursing assistants, and construction tradespeople, the private market simply does not generate enough income for workers to access National low-income housing without subsidy. The average minimum wage worker would need to work 113 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom apartment, highlighting the mathematical impossibility of market-rate affordability for this demographic.
Market Failure vs. Zoning Reform
While the NLIHC acknowledges the value of zoning reforms for increasing overall supply, the statement draws a hard line regarding National low-income housing. Zoning changes may help middle-income households, but they cannot solve the ELI crisis. Private developers cannot build or operate housing affordable to extremely low-income households without public subsidies because the rents these households can pay do not cover development or operating costs.
The testimony warns against conflating general supply increases with targeted affordability. It argues that relying solely on deregulation ignores the reality that National low-income housing requires direct government intervention to bridge the gap between tenant ability-to-pay and actual housing costs.
Policy Solutions for Expanding National Low-Income Housing
The core of the NLIHC statement is its actionable policy roadmap. Rather than vague aspirations, the document recommends specific legislative vehicles designed to expand National low-income housing stock and preserve existing assets.
The National Housing Trust Fund as the Primary Tool
The statement identifies the National Housing Trust Fund (HTF) as the single best tool for addressing the shortage. Unlike other programs, the HTF is statutorily required to dedicate at least 75% of its rental housing dollars to extremely low-income households.
The NLIHC advocates for significant expansion through legislation like the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which proposes investing over $44 billion annually over ten years. This level of investment is deemed necessary to build, repair, and operate nearly 2 million homes, directly targeting the deepest gaps in National low-income housing.
Reforming the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
While the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the largest source of affordable housing financing, the NLIHC notes it often fails to serve the poorest tenants. Only 16% of new LIHTC apartments are affordable to ELI renters. To fix this, the statement endorses the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, specifically its "ELI Basis Boost" provision.
This reform would provide additional tax credits to developers who set aside at least 20% of units for extremely low-income households, making National low-income housing projects financially feasible in markets where they currently cannot pencil out.
Preservation as a Foundation
Expanding supply is insufficient if existing stock continues to deteriorate. The statement emphasizes that preserving federally assisted rental homes is foundational to any National low-income housing strategy. Public housing alone faces a capital backlog exceeding $90 billion, losing 10,000 to 15,000 units annually to obsolescence. The NLIHC urges Congress to invest substantially in preservation to prevent displacement and maintain the limited inventory of deeply affordable units.
Opposition to Misguided Middle-Income Proposals
A significant portion of the testimony is dedicated to opposing the creation of a "Middle Income Housing Tax Credit." The NLIHC argues this proposal would divert scarce resources away from National low-income housing toward households that the private market already serves adequately.
Data show that only 1% of severely cost-burdened households have middle incomes, compared to 90% who are extremely or very low-income. From a strategic perspective, subsidizing middle-income housing when National low-income housing faces a 7.3-million-unit deficit represents a misallocation of federal funds that could exacerbate homelessness.
Protecting Administrative Capacity for National Low-Income Housing Programs
Policy recommendations are moot without administrative capacity. The statement raises urgent concerns about proposed staffing cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), specifically referencing proposals by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Eliminating half of HUD’s staff would cripple the agency’s ability to manage National low-income housing programs, oversee disaster recovery, enforce fair housing laws, and administer grants.
The NLIHC stresses that efficiency cannot come at the cost of functionality. Drastic reductions in personnel would cause harmful delays in accessing congressionally approved resources, ultimately worsening the very crisis policymakers seek to solve.
Adequate staffing is presented not as bureaucratic overhead, but as essential infrastructure for delivering National low-income housing assistance to millions of marginalized Americans.
Conclusion
The NLIHC’s Statement for the Record provides an indispensable framework for understanding the depth of America’s housing crisis. By rigorously distinguishing between general affordability and the specific catastrophe facing extremely low-income renters, it clarifies why broad market solutions fall short.
The document reinforces that sustainable progress in National low-income housing requires targeted federal investment, statutory reforms to existing tax credits, and the protection of administrative capacity.
For researchers, advocates, and policymakers, this testimony remains a foundational reference point for crafting equitable housing policy that addresses the needs of those most at risk of homelessness and housing poverty.