A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill aims to increase the housing supply in the United States and address homelessness through various funding programs and grants. It establishes funds and block grants for building rental housing, converting structures into emergency shelters or affordable housing, and supporting unhoused individuals with mental and behavioral health services. The legislation increases funding for existing programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investments Partnership Program, and USDA rural development housing. Additionally, it creates new offices within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the Office of Eviction Prevention and the U.S. Interagency Council on Housing Affordability and Preservation. Finally, the bill includes provisions requiring prevailing wages for laborers on projects receiving assistance from the newly funded programs.
Yes· 3 of 43
- Scored +10
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Provides 1 million new vouchers, homelessness services, and eviction prevention.
- Scored +10
Does this make housing cost less?
Comprehensive effort to increase housing supply through loans, grants, tax credits, and 1 million new vouchers.
- Scored +10
Is this likely to reduce homelessness?
Directly targets homelessness through emergency shelter conversions and the Center for Unhoused Individuals.
The opposite
- Scored -8
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Significantly increases federal spending across multiple housing and health grant programs.
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Authorizes billions in new spending over five years, which increases the national deficit if not offset.
- Scored -5
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The bill focuses on large-scale spending authorizations without specifying funding sources.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Housing Supply and Construction Loans: Section 102 establishes the Middle Income Housing Construction Loan Fund to provide low-interest loans for rental housing construction and adaptive reuse, targeting households earning between 60 and 120 percent of the area median income. This helps create more housing options for moderate-income families who do not qualify for deeply subsidized housing.
-
Workforce Housing Grants: Section 103 establishes a Workforce Housing Block Grant Program providing $5,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to support the development of workforce rental housing. This program prioritizes high-cost urban regions, rural communities, rapidly growing suburban areas, and locations near employment centers and transit.
-
Eviction Prevention and Tenant Support: Section 303 establishes the Office of Eviction Prevention within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to prevent evictions, protect tenants from illegal or court-ordered evictions, and administer the Eviction Protection Grant Program. This provides vital advocacy, education, and legal resources to keep people in their homes.
-
Behavioral Health Services for Unhoused Individuals: Section 202 adds a Center for Unhoused Individuals and establishes mental and behavioral health response grants to expand access to substance use disorder treatment, overdose prevention, and care coordination for unhoused individuals. This directly addresses the health and stability needs of homeless populations.
-
Shelter and Office Conversions: Section 113 provides grants to convert hotels, motels, and vacant properties into emergency, temporary, and transitional housing. Additionally, Section 114 establishes the Office to Residential Affordable Housing Conversion Program to convert unused State and local government buildings into affordable residential rental projects.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Prevailing Wage Cost Burdens: Multiple sections (such as Section 102(e), Section 103(f), Section 104(d), and Section 113(e)) require contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages under the Davis-Act for construction, alteration, or repair work on assisted projects. While this benefits laborers, it may increase overall construction costs, potentially reducing the total number of housing units that can be built with the appropriated funds.
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? — Provides 1 million new vouchers, homelessness services, and eviction prevention. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases funding for supportive housing specifically for persons with disabilities. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Specifically targets 'Middle Income' and 'Workforce' housing for those at 60-120% AMI. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increased funding for elderly supportive housing. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Significantly increases funding for supportive housing for the elderly. Would union members be better off under this? — Prevailing wage requirements support union wage standards on federally funded projects. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Strong focus on high-cost urban regions and conversion of urban buildings. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Includes mandates to address racial segregation and targets high-cost urban markets. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Implements a Language Access Plan to improve program access for those with limited English proficiency. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Implements a Language Access Plan to improve program access for those with limited English proficiency. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Expands middle-income housing options and rental assistance. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increases funding for Indian Housing Block Grants. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Increases funding for USDA rural development housing programs. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Targets workforce housing for middle-income earners often represented by young professionals. Would children be better off under this? — Increases childcare facility funding and improves housing stability for families. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Language Access Plan improves ability of non-native speakers to access federal housing resources. Would women be better off under this? — Benefits women through increased childcare funding and housing stability. Would men be better off under this? — Benefits men through construction job creation and housing stability. Would students be better off under this? — Increases availability of affordable rental housing options. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General benefit from increased housing supply and economic growth. Would business owners be better off under this? — Creates opportunities for mission-driven developers and nonprofits to obtain low-interest loans.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Comprehensive effort to increase housing supply through loans, grants, tax credits, and 1 million new vouchers. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Directly targets homelessness through emergency shelter conversions and the Center for Unhoused Individuals. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases rental assistance and provides an Office of Eviction Prevention to reduce homelessness. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Increases funding for supportive housing specifically for persons with disabilities. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Requires states to submit equity-based allocation plans that address racial and income segregation. Does this make child care cost less? — Provides $500 million specifically for building or rehabilitating childcare facilities. Does this change how police departments operate? — Provides mental health training for law enforcement interfacing with unhoused individuals.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Creates the SAMHSA Center for Unhoused Individuals and provides $1 billion for behavioral health services. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Specifically funds medication-assisted treatment and harm reduction for unhoused individuals with opioid use disorder. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Expands behavioral health and substance use disorder treatment specifically for the unhoused population.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Appropriates $1 billion for the National Disaster Resilience Competition. Does this invest in rural communities? — Increases funding for USDA Rural Development housing programs. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Prioritizes workforce housing projects located near transit centers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides funding to prevent evictions and protect tenants from illegal removal processes. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes new federal offices and an interagency council to coordinate national housing policy. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires detailed annual reporting on housing demographics and grant performance.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased funding for construction of affordable and workforce housing will create significant construction and development jobs. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Establishes an Office of Eviction Prevention to protect tenants from harmful eviction practices. Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — Mandates prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act for most construction projects, benefiting skilled labor. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investment in infrastructure and housing supply generally stimulates economic activity. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides loans and grants for housing developers, though some requirements may favor larger entities. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — Increasing the supply of housing may help lower long-term rental inflation. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Significantly increases federal spending across multiple housing and health grant programs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill focuses on large-scale spending authorizations without specifying funding sources. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Authorizes billions in new spending over five years, which increases the national deficit if not offset.
- 7/23/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.