A Republican bill with 1 Republican 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
This bill is known as the Pathways to a Thriving Household Act or the PATH Act. It allows public housing agencies and owners to establish minimum work requirements for recipients of Federal public housing assistance. The requirements can mandate a maximum of 40 hours of work per week. The bill lists specific exemptions, such as for individuals under 18 or over 62, individuals with disabilities, pregnant women, and students. It also outlines approved work activities, such as employment, job training, education, and community service. Finally, the legislation permits agencies and owners to terminate program assistance for families who do not comply with the work rules.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Grants public housing agencies and owners local authority to establish and enforce work requirements.
- Scored +2
Is this likely to create jobs?
The bill encourages workforce participation and job training among public housing recipients.
- Scored +1
Does this give the federal government more power?
Establishes a federal framework enabling housing agencies to impose work requirements.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -5
Does this make housing cost less?
Allows public housing agencies to terminate housing assistance for families failing to comply with work requirements.
- Scored -5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households in public housing face strict work mandates and the risk of losing housing assistance.
- Scored -4
Is this likely to reduce homelessness?
Mandatory work rules with termination penalties could potentially increase homelessness risk for non-compliant families.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Supportive Services: Section 2(a) adds Section 16(g)(4)(A) to the housing act, requiring public housing agencies or owners that set up work requirements to offer supportive services to help individuals and families find jobs or engage in required work activities. This could benefit people by giving them extra help to secure employment.
-
Exemptions for Vulnerable Groups: Section 2(a) adds Section 16(g)(1)(B) to the housing act, which protects certain groups from the work requirements. This is positive because it exempts individuals under 18 or over 62, individuals with disabilities, pregnant women, primary caretakers of young children or dependents with serious medical conditions, and higher education students.
-
Hardship Exceptions: Section 2(a) adds Section 16(g)(4)(E) to the housing act, requiring a written hardship policy that allows exceptions or exemptions for specific situations. This could benefit individuals who are seeking disability status, are temporarily relocated due to a disaster, or are actively trying to comply but struggle to find work.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of Housing Assistance: Section 2(a) adds Section 16(g)(6)(A)(ii) to the housing act, stating that public housing agencies or owners may terminate program assistance to a covered family or family member if they do not comply with the work requirements. This could result in individuals or families losing their housing assistance.
-
Mandatory Work Hours: Section 2(a) adds Section 16(g)(1)(A) to the housing act, allowing public housing agencies or owners to establish a maximum 40 hour per week work requirement. This may place a heavy burden on individuals and families who are required to meet these hours to keep their housing.
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.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Allows public housing agencies to terminate housing assistance for families failing to comply with work requirements. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Mandatory work rules with termination penalties could potentially increase homelessness risk for non-compliant families. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Risk of losing housing assistance could negatively impact economically vulnerable households.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households in public housing face strict work mandates and the risk of losing housing assistance. Would children be better off under this? — Families facing potential termination of housing assistance could create housing instability for children.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Grants public housing agencies and owners local authority to establish and enforce work requirements. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Requires written hardship policies and formal review procedures for denials of hardship requests. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a federal framework enabling housing agencies to impose work requirements.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill encourages workforce participation and job training among public housing recipients. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Promotes workforce participation which can slightly boost labor supply.
- 6/3/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee