A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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
S. 3067, known as the Innovation Fund Act, establishes a grant program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to increase the local housing supply. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will award competitive grants to eligible cities, counties, local governments, and Indian tribes that have demonstrated objective improvements in housing growth. Eligible entities can use these grant funds for community development activities, local and regional transportation projects, clean water or drinking water matching funds, and initiatives that expand the supply of attainable housing. The bill authorizes $200,000,000 to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031, adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, the legislation ensures that the Secretary is not authorized to mandate, supersede, or preempt any local zoning or land use policy.
Yes· 3 of 36
- Scored +7
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill explicitly provides grants and incentivizes local policy changes to increase the supply of attainable housing.
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Focuses on attainable housing serving households at or below area median income levels.
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Increases the availability of attainable housing, helping first-time home buyers and renters.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Authorizes new federal appropriations for competitive grants over multiple fiscal years.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes $200 million annually plus inflation adjustments, increasing federal spending.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Adds new discretionary grant funding obligations without offsetting savings.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b)(3)(D) and Section 2(b)(4)(B): This provision allows grant funds to be used for initiatives that expand the supply of attainable housing, such as revising parking requirements, reducing minimum lot sizes, and eliminating restrictions against accessory dwelling units. These actions could make it easier and cheaper to build more homes, helping everyday people find more affordable places to live.
-
Section 2(b)(5)(A) and Section 2(b)(5)(B): The bill requires the Secretary to make at least 25 grants annually, ranging from $250,000 to $10,000,000, with strong consideration given to a relatively even spread of rural, suburban, and urban communities. This ensures that federal support is distributed broadly across the country rather than concentrated in just a few areas.
-
Section 2(c)(1): This rule of construction clarifies that nothing in the section authorizes the Secretary to mandate, supersede, or preempt any local zoning or land use policy. This protects local communities by ensuring that unelected federal officials cannot override local control over neighborhood planning.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(d)(1): The bill authorizes $200,000,000 to be appropriated for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031, which is further adjusted for inflation under Section 2(d)(2). Taxpayers will ultimately bear the burden of funding these federal grants, adding to government spending.
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? — Focuses on attainable housing serving households at or below area median income levels. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Aids middle-income households by encouraging policies that expand housing inventory and lower costs. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases the availability of attainable housing, helping first-time home buyers and renters. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill ensures strong consideration for an even spread of grants in rural communities. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Metropolitan cities and urban counties are direct eligible entities for the grant program. Would business owners be better off under this? — Benefits local real estate, development, and construction business owners. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Expands housing options and affordability for middle-aged households and families. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly includes Indian tribes as eligible entities for grant funding. Would retired people be better off under this? — Aids retirees on fixed incomes by promoting housing options that reduce cost burdens. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Supports housing options like accessory dwelling units and accessible neighborhood development. Would students be better off under this? — Helps young adults and students finding initial independent housing more affordable. Would union members be better off under this? — Construction and infrastructure projects supported by the bill can create union jobs. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves access to affordable housing across diverse urban and suburban communities. Would children be better off under this? — Stable and affordable housing benefits family stability and children's welfare. Would farmers be better off under this? — Provides balanced grant distribution consideration for rural communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves access to affordable housing across diverse urban and suburban communities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Expands access to housing markets for lower and moderate-income residents. Would men be better off under this? — Improves housing availability and affordability for individuals and families. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Local development flexibilities can support accessible housing initiatives. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increased affordable housing stock can assist veterans seeking attainable homes. Would women be better off under this? — Affordable housing access supports household stability for single mothers and women. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Expands housing supply availability generally for all community members. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General housing affordability initiatives benefit community members broadly. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Expands housing supply availability generally for all community members.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill explicitly provides grants and incentivizes local policy changes to increase the supply of attainable housing. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increasing housing supply and affordability helps lower-income households reduce housing cost burdens. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Boosting overall housing availability contributes to easing conditions related to housing insecurity. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Expanding attainable housing options can provide broader access for diverse demographic groups.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Ensures strong consideration for a balanced distribution of grants across rural communities. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Permits grant funding usage for transportation and infrastructure initiatives. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Allows grant funds to support local and regional transportation projects.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Explicitly prohibits the federal government from preempting or mandating local zoning and land use policies. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires publishing methodologies for determining housing growth in the Federal Register for public comment.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Local development and construction grants can benefit small businesses in the building sector. Is this likely to create jobs? — Funding for housing and infrastructure projects can stimulate local construction and development jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investing in housing supply and local infrastructure can support regional economic activity. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Authorizes new federal appropriations for competitive grants over multiple fiscal years. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes $200 million annually plus inflation adjustments, increasing federal spending. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Adds new discretionary grant funding obligations without offsetting savings.
- 10/28/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Raphael WarnockDemocrat · Georgia