Maxine Waters (D-CA)
To increase the mandatory contribution amount of Federal Home Loan Banks to the Affordable Housing Program, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported Unfavorably (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 28.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
This bill aims to increase the mandatory contribution amount that Federal Home Loan Banks must provide to the Affordable Housing Program. It proposes amending the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to change how contributions are calculated for certain years. Specifically, it seeks to establish a new contribution rate for the year 2026 and all years following it. The new rule would require a contribution of 15 percent of the preceding year's net income. Additionally, it ensures that the total contribution from the Banks does not fall below $100,000,000 in any given year.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +10
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly benefits the primary target of the Affordable Housing Program.
- Scored +10
Does this make housing cost less?
Directly increases mandatory contributions to the Affordable Housing Program.
- Scored +7
Is this likely to reduce homelessness?
Increased funding for affordable housing is primary to reducing homelessness.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased funding for affordable housing: By increasing the mandatory contribution to 15 percent of the preceding year's net income, the bill aims to increase investment in the Affordable Housing Program (Section 1).
-
Guaranteed minimum funding levels: The bill establishes that the aggregate contribution of the Banks shall not be less than $100,000,000 for each year, providing a financial floor for the program (Section 1).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly mentioned in the text provided.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly benefits the primary target of the Affordable Housing Program. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases funding for accessible and affordable housing. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Affordable housing programs are heavily utilized in urban areas. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults often struggle more with housing affordability. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits communities that have historically lacked affordable housing access. Would children be better off under this? — Stable affordable housing provides a better environment for children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits communities that have historically lacked affordable housing access. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Benefits underserved populations in need of affordable housing. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees on fixed incomes benefit from affordable housing. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors on fixed incomes benefit significantly from affordable housing programs. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increases the pool of funding that can support veteran-specific housing. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Low-income immigrants often rely on affordable housing programs. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — LGBTQ individuals often face higher rates of housing insecurity. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Broadly benefits those seeking affordable housing options. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides potential benefit for lower-middle-class households. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides benefit to low-income residents in rural areas. Would students be better off under this? — Helps students who may be facing housing instability. Would women be better off under this? — Women are disproportionately affected by housing instability. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides general benefit to low-income individuals within the community. Would men be better off under this? — Provides general benefit to low-income individuals. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides general benefit to low-income individuals within the community.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Directly increases mandatory contributions to the Affordable Housing Program. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Increased funding for affordable housing is primary to reducing homelessness. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — More affordable housing is a key component in reducing poverty. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Affordable housing funding often targets underserved communities, promoting racial equity.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increased investment in housing can provide a modest economic stimulus. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased funding for affordable housing often stimulates construction jobs.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Affordable housing funds may be utilized for rural housing development.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal mandates on the contributions of Federal Home Loan Banks.
- 9/16/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported Unfavorably (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 28.
- 9/8/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House