Comparison of Selected Versions of H.R. 6644

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 101 would make changes to certain Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) counseling requirements, including distribution of funds, performance reviews, remedies for counselors found to lack competence, and termination of assistance. This section would also provide that borrowers with certain federally backed mortgages who become delinquent should be given an opportunity to participate in available housing counseling, with the costs paid for out of the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA's) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) if certain measures related to the financial stability of the MMIF are met.

Section 101 is similar to Section 101 of the Senate bill, with a few differences. There are some differences in how language related to HUD reviews of housing counseling agencies would apply, and while the Senate bill would allow HUD to permanently suspend a housing counselor's certification under certain circumstances, the House bill does not include the word "permanently." The House bill also includes an additional reference to owner-occupants of cooperative housing units in a definition of "covered mortgage loan."

The sections in the Senate and House bills are substantively similar, with some differences.

NA

Section 102 would require the HUD Secretary to issue model building code language, best practices, and technical guidance to facilitate the permitting of "point-access block residential buildings," defined as multifamily buildings not greater than six stories in height with a single stairway. This section would also require the HUD Secretary to encourage the International Code Council (ICC) to incorporate provisions about point-access block buildings into the International Building Code (IBC), and it would permit the HUD Secretary to award competitive grants for point-access block pilot projects.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 103 would exempt U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural housing projects that meet the definition of "infill housing" from any study or report on the environmental effects of such assistance, and require USDA to issue a report to Congress on the implementation of this section within five years of enactment.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 104 would require Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantees to maintain, on a publicly accessible website, a searchable database that identifies all parcels of undeveloped land owned by the grantee.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 105 would allow HUD to establish a pilot program to increase access to small-dollar mortgages. The program would be time-limited and would include certain reporting requirements.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill, although both the Senate bill and the House bill address small-dollar mortgages in additional ways in Title IV.

NA

Section 106 would authorize a new three-year pilot program to provide grants to selected owners of federally assisted housing properties to acquire, install, and test the efficiency of approved temperature sensors to ensure federally assisted units remain in compliance with temperature requirements between inspections. The pilot would require data collection and an interim and final evaluation. The pilot would sunset three years after enactment.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 107 would abolish HUD's existing Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (RBC) and require HUD to publish guidelines and best practices—in consultation with an external task force—with respect to state and local zoning and land use policies (referred to in the bill as "zoning frameworks"). This section would also require a report from HUD describing the adoption of these guidelines and best practices by states and localities.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 201 would eliminate the end date of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) and the cap on the number of public housing units that can convert to certain other forms of federal rental assistance. This would mean that, over time, all remaining public housing properties could potentially be converted via RAD. This section would make other program changes, including requiring the HUD Secretary to report annually on the impacts of the program and authorizing the Secretary to take action against properties that violate the terms of the RAD agreement, among other changes.

NA

There is no corresponding section in the House bill.

Section 202 would permit the HUD Secretary to give additional weight to competitive grant applicants with proposed activities or projects that are located in, or substantially and directly benefit, a community that has been designated as an Opportunity Zone.

Section 201 is identical to Section 202 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 203 would authorize a pilot program to provide grants to states or local governments to fund certain home repair activities. Implementing entities would provide grants to low-income homeowners and loans to landlords who meet certain criteria for "whole-home repairs" not covered by other federal home repair programs. Landlords who receive loans would be required to agree to certain conditions related to rental properties repaired through the program.

Section 202 is substantively similar to Section 203 of the Senate bill, although it adds language about owner-occupants of cooperative housing units in the definition of an "eligible homeowner."

The House bill includes language about owner-occupants of cooperative housing units not present in the Senate bill. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 204 would increase the cap on investments made to a single institution under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) from 15% of a bank's unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus to 20% of that amount.

Section 203 is similar to Section 204 of the Senate bill, although it would additionally require the Federal Reserve to submit a report to Congress every two years with certain information about public welfare investments.

The House bill includes reporting requirements not present in the Senate bill. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 205 would reallocate a portion of CDBG formula funding between existing entitlement communities. Entitlement communities would have their CDBG funding reduced by 10% if they have a below-median "housing growth improvement rate." This rate is calculated as the quotient of growth in housing units over the last five years and growth in housing units over the five years before that. The aggregate amount by which CDBG funding to these below-median communities is reduced would be reallocated to other eligible recipients in proportion to their total number of housing units. Entitlement communities would not be eligible for reallocation if they have relatively low housing costs, relatively high vacancy rates, a recent disaster declaration, or no legal authority over land use policy. Communities with a sufficiently high average housing growth rate over the past five years could have their CDBG funding increased, but not decreased. This policy would take effect in the third full fiscal year after the date of enactment, and remain in effect until 2043.

NA

There is no corresponding section in the House bill.

Section 206 would make new construction of housing an eligible CDBG activity. Under the section, new housing construction must qualify as affordable housing under the HOME program (42 U.S.C. §12745) and may not account for more than 20% of a grantee's CDBG funding allocation.

Section 204 is identical to Section 206 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 207 would allow the HUD Secretary to designate "assistance administered by the Secretary" as a "special project" for the purposes of environmental review. This section would also make Indian tribes eligible to be responsible entities for the purposes of environmental review of special projects (this is permitted under current regulation).

Section 205 is substantively the same as Section 207 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

Section 208 would reclassify the required level of review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for several HUD housing-related activities.

Section 206 is identical to Section 208 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 209 would authorize HUD to provide competitive grants to eligible entities for various activities including planning and land use policy reforms. The program would sunset five years after the date of enactment.

Section 207 is identical to Section 209 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 210 would authorize a new competitive grant program for units of general local government and Indian tribes. To be eligible for a grant, applicants must have "demonstrated an objective improvement in housing supply growth, as determined by the [HUD] Secretary." Eligible uses of grants would include activities eligible under the CDBG or the Local and Regional Project Assistance Program (a competitive grant program for certain transportation projects), or initiatives to increase the supply of "attainable housing" (as defined in the section). The section authorizes $200 million for these grants for each of FY2027 through FY2031, adjusted for inflation over time.

Section 208 is similar to Section 210 of the Senate bill, but would sunset the program after seven years and include as an eligible use eliminating cooperative housing regulations and restrictions.

The House bill includes a sunset provision and an additional eligible use related to cooperative housing not present in the Senate bill. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 211 would authorize HUD to provide competitive grants to eligible entities to adopt pre-reviewed designs (pattern books) for certain types of low- or mid-rise housing with no more than 25 dwelling units.

Section 209 is substantively the same as Section 211 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

Section 212 would authorize the HUD Secretary to establish a new competitive grant program for states and local governments that are eligible to receive funding under the HOME program. Eligible uses of grants would include various activities to convert vacant and abandoned buildings into "attainable housing" (as defined in the section). The program would sunset in 2031. This section would also require the HUD Secretary to study the impact of the pilot program and submit a report to Congress.

Section 210 is similar to Section 212 of the Senate bill, but would include as an eligible use the establishment, maintenance, or expansion of housing cooperatives.

The House bill includes an additional eligible use related to cooperative housing not present in the Senate bill. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 213 would increase the statutory baseline loan limits for several FHA multifamily programs. (These baseline loan limits are subject to annual inflation adjustments that determine the actual loan limits for a given year.) It would also require HUD to use the Census Bureau's Price Deflator Index of Multifamily Residential Units Under Construction as the index used to calculate the annual inflation adjustment rather than the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) required by current statute. This section would also require the FHA to conduct a study to assess whether the HUD Secretary has sufficient authority to adjust multifamily loan limits and the impacts of multifamily loan limit increases.

Section 211 would increase the statutory baseline loan limits for several FHA multifamily programs by different amounts than the Senate bill. Like the Senate bill, it would also require HUD to use the Census Bureau's Price Deflator Index of Multifamily Residential Units Under Construction as the index used to calculate the annual inflation adjustment rather than the CPI-U required by current statute. The section also includes a rule of construction stating that nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the HUD Secretary to revise the statutory exceptions for high-cost percentage and high-cost areas annual indexing.

The House bill proposes larger increases in loan limits than the Senate bill. While the Senate bill would re-baseline the statutory loan limits to levels similar to (but lower than) their current inflation-adjusted levels, the House bill would further raise the baseline loan limits in statute. The limits proposed in the House bill are generally more than double the limits proposed in the Senate bill.

The House bill includes a rule of construction regarding the HUD Secretary's authority relating to high-cost areas not present in the Senate bill.

The Senate bill includes a study requirement not present in the House bill.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 301 would amend the statutory definition of a "manufactured home" to allow homes to be built without a permanent chassis. This section would also direct HUD to issue revised standards for such homes, including a requirement for a distinct label to distinguish manufactured homes built with and without a permanent chassis. Additionally, this section provides that states shall certify to HUD, within certain time frames, that they have amended their laws and regulations to treat manufactured homes with and without a permanent chassis the same. In addition, the section requires the HUD Secretary to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and it provides that any energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing developed by any federal agency shall only have legal effect if adopted by HUD pursuant to the consensus standards and regulatory development process in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (NMHCSSA).

Section 301 includes identical language related to amending the statutory definition of a "manufactured home" to allow homes to be built without a permanent chassis; directing HUD to issue revised standards for such homes, including a requirement for a distinct label to distinguish manufactured homes built with and without a permanent chassis; and providing that states shall certify to HUD, within certain time frames, that they have amended their laws and regulations to treat manufactured homes with and without a permanent chassis the same. It does not include the language in the Senate bill related to the adoption of energy efficiency standards. Rather, this section would amend the statutory definition of "Federal manufactured home construction and safety standard" to add "energy efficiency" to existing language regarding reasonable standards for the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. It would also specify that HUD has the primary authority to establish manufactured home construction and safety standards, and that any other federal agency that seeks to establish a manufactured home construction and safety standard may not establish such a standard without approval from HUD.

Many of these sections in the Senate and House bills are substantively the same, but there are substantive differences related to energy efficiency standards and HUD's authority over manufactured housing standards:

The Senate bill includes language not present in the House bill that requires the HUD Secretary to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes and provides that any energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing developed by any federal agency shall only have legal effect if adopted by HUD pursuant to the consensus standards and regulatory development process in the NMHCSSA.

The House bill includes language not present in the Senate bill that would amend the statutory definition of "Federal manufactured home construction and safety standard" to add "energy efficiency" to existing language about reasonable standards for the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes, and would provide that HUD shall have the primary authority to establish federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards.

Section 302 would direct the HUD Secretary to identify barriers to using modular building methods in FHA construction financing programs, identify measures authorized under Section 235 of the National Housing Act that may facilitate modular developers' participation, publish a related report, and initiate a rulemaking to examine an alternative draw schedule for construction financing loans to modular and manufactured home developers. This section would also allow the HUD Secretary to award a grant to study the design and feasibility of a standardized uniform commercial code for modular homes.

Section 302 is identical to Section 302 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 303 would make a number of changes to FHA's Title I Property Improvement Program and Title I Manufactured Home Loan Program, including increasing the baseline loan limits, changing how loan limits are adjusted over time, changing maximum loan terms, providing HUD with more flexibility to set terms and conditions related to certain manufactured home leases, and making the construction of accessory dwelling units an eligible use of Title I property improvement loans. This section would also direct HUD to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on the cost effectiveness of offsite construction.

Section 303 is substantively the same as Section 303 of the Senate bill, except that it would require that the HUD report on offsite construction be completed within one year of the date of enactment.

The House bill includes a deadline for the required HUD report not present in the Senate bill. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 304 would formally authorize a version of the Preservation and Reinvestment in Community Enhancement (PRICE) program, which would provide competitive funds to a range of eligible entities for various enumerated activities related to manufactured homes and manufactured home communities, including reconstruction or repair of existing homes, replacement of homes, and community infrastructure, among others. This section would allow the HUD Secretary to set aside amounts for grants to Indian tribes, their tribally designated housing entities, or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

NA

There is no corresponding section in the House bill.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 401 would require the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to submit a report to Congress on loan originator compensation practices in the residential mortgage market, including the effects of these practices—among other factors—on the availability of small dollar mortgage loans. This section would also authorize the CFPB Director, after the issuance of the report, to issue regulations to clarify permissible types of loan originator compensation that would not disadvantage originators of small dollar mortgages.

Section 401 is similar to Section 401 of the Senate bill, with some differences. It removes certain language related to additional loan originator compensation types to be included in the study, includes new language directing the study to give due consideration to practices for compensating loan originators associated with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), and would not authorize the CFPB Director to issue regulations.

The Senate bill includes language allowing the CFPB Director to issue regulations, unlike the House bill. The Senate bill also includes language, not present in the House bill, related to additional loan originator compensation types identified by the director that could be included in the study.

The House bill includes language, not present in the Senate bill, directing the study to give due consideration to practices for compensating loan originators associated with CDFIs.

Section 402 would require the CFPB Director, in consultation with the HUD Secretary and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director, to evaluate the impact of points and fees thresholds for qualified mortgages on small dollar mortgage originations. This section would also authorize the CFPB Director, after conducting the evaluation, to initiate rulemaking to amend the thresholds.

Section 402 is similar to Section 402 of the Senate bill, except that it would not authorize the CFPB Director to issue regulations.

The Senate bill would authorize the CFPB Director to issue regulations, unlike the House bill. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 403 would make certain changes to standards that apply to appraisers who perform appraisals for mortgages insured by the FHA. This section would also amend certain provisions of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) that apply to appraisals more generally. This would include the addition of workforce training or education grants to a list of activities that the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council should fund. These grants may only be made to state appraiser certifying and licensing agencies, which shall report on the use of funds and outcomes.

Section 403 is identical to Section 403 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 404 would authorize the HUD Secretary to create a new Escrow Expansion Pilot within the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program that would allow families to participate in a streamlined version of FSS featuring only the escrow account component of the program, without the caseworker and self-sufficiency plan requirements. Under this section, HUD would select not more than 25 eligible entities (Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] or owners/sponsors of a multifamily property receiving project-based rental assistance) to establish escrow accounts for not more than 5,000 low-income families. The HUD Secretary would select eligible entities not later than 1 year after establishing the pilot program and would conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on outcomes not later than 10 years after selecting eligible entities. The program would sunset 10 years after the date of enactment.

Section 404 is substantively the same as Section 404 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

Section 405 would allow inspections under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, the HOME program, or various USDA Rural Housing Service (RHS) programs to fully satisfy the inspection requirements of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, subject to certain conditions. It would also allow for remote inspections in rural or small areas and create a mechanism for landlords newly participating in the HCV program to have their units pre-inspected. It would further direct that PHAs provide a list of any such pre-inspected units to tenants when they are selected to participate in the HCV program.

Section 405 is the same as Section 405 of the Senate bill, except that it adds conditions on the use of remote or video inspections in rural areas. The conditions are that the inspection be thorough and not misrepresent the condition of the unit, and that it provide the information necessary to accurately evaluate the conditions of the unit to ensure it meets the relevant standards.

The House bill includes certain conditions, not present in the Senate bill, on the use of remote or video inspections in rural areas. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 501 includes several provisions that would institutionalize the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program, including delineating the duties of HUD in regard to disaster response and recovery, establishing the Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency, establishing the Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund, and authorizing CDBG-DR as a standing program.

NA

There is no corresponding section in the House bill.

Section 502 would make several reforms to the HOME program. It would reauthorize the program, modify requirements regarding Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), increase the income limit and maximum purchase price for homeownership activities, modify the definition of "purchase price," waive certain resale requirements for certain populations, require that resale buyers are income eligible, modify requirements regarding Community Land Trusts (CLTs), allow certain grantees to use HOME funds for certain housing-related infrastructure activities, exempt certain small projects from various requirements, add a financial viability exemption to the period of affordability, modify the per-unit subsidy limit, specify the interaction between HOME and the HCV program, allow the HUD Secretary to limit reallocations and reduce payments to noncompliant grantees, revise grantee monitoring requirements, allow grantee contributions to administrative costs to count toward the program's matching requirement, adjust minimum allocations, remove the statutory preference for rehabilitation, and make other technical and conforming amendments.

Section 501 is similar to Section 502 of the Senate bill, though there are some differences. This section would additionally exempt more categories of HOME activities from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, require the HUD Secretary to take steps to limit "duplicative" environmental reviews, direct the HUD Secretary to issue updated Build America Buy America Act (BABA) guidance, and make other technical and conforming amendments.

The House bill includes several provisions not present in the Senate bill. The House bill would exempt additional categories of HOME activities from NEPA review, require the HUD Secretary to take steps to limit "duplicative" environmental reviews, direct the HUD Secretary to issue updated BABA guidance, and make other technical and conforming amendments. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 503 would make several changes to rural housing programs administered by the USDA's RHS. These changes would revise and make permanent various programs and policies related to the preservation of existing rural multifamily affordable housing, including the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Program (MPR) and Section 521 rental assistance decoupling. This section would also authorize the Rural Community Development Initiative with a $500,000 maximum grant limit. Additionally, it would modify the Section 502 single-family home loan programs and the Section 504 home repair program, including by increasing income eligibility limits for Section 504 loans (but requiring that 60% of loan funds be reserved for very low-income applicants) and increasing the dollar threshold at which a Section 504 loan is to be secured by a lien on the property rather than only a promissory note. The section would also require the USDA Secretary to release annual reports on rural housing programs and a study regarding applications under Sections 502 and 504, in addition to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on rural housing service technology.

Section 502 is similar to Section 503 of the Senate bill, though it does not contain the language requiring that 60% of Section 504 home repair loan funds be reserved for very low-income applicants. It also includes housing cooperative corporations in the list of eligible recipients of multifamily housing transfer technical assistance.

The Senate bill includes a very low-income targeting requirement for the Section 504 program not present in the House bill. The House bill includes housing cooperative corporations as eligible recipients of multifamily housing transfer technical assistance, unlike the Senate bill. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 504 would permit the HUD Secretary to implement a limited expansion of the Moving To Work (MTW) demonstration, allowing up to an additional 25 PHAs to participate. The Secretary could only implement the expansion after meeting certain specified reporting requirements. Selection criteria include factors related to agency size, geographic diversity, and rate of serving children and youth. Waivers available to PHAs selected under this cohort would be limited and could not include certain waivers related to rent setting, rent burdens, portability, project-basing, time limits, or work requirements. Additionally, for this cohort of PHAs, resident participation in any self-sufficiency program administered pursuant to waivers shall be optional.

NA

There is no corresponding section in the House bill.

Section 505 would allow Emergency Solutions Grants Program (ESG) grantees that meet certain requirements, including demonstrating local need, to request that the HUD Secretary waive the cap on funds spent on the costs of street outreach and emergency shelter for their FY2027-FY2030 funding allocations.

Section 503 is identical to Section 505 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 601 would require the FHFA Director to add a statement to the Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA), below the existing question about military service, reading "If yes, you may qualify for a VA Home Loan. Consult your lender regarding eligibility." This section would also require a GAO study regarding the implementation of this requirement.

Section 601 is similar to Section 601 of the Senate bill, though it would additionally require that the new statement and the existing military service question be placed above the signature line on the URLA.

The House bill would require that the new statement and the existing military service question be placed above the signature line on the URLA. This requirement is not included in Section 601 of the Senate bill, although Section 602 of the Senate bill addresses the placement of the military service question. The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 602 would require that the URLA's military service question, as amended by Section 601, be moved above the signature line. This section would also require lenders to give FHA loan applicants information comparing the terms of an FHA-insured loan to the terms of a VA-guaranteed loan, in addition to the comparison to conventional loans currently required by law.

NA

There is no corresponding section in the House bill, although Section 601 of the House bill addresses the placement of the military service question. The House bill would not require lenders to give FHA loan applicants information comparing the terms of a VA-guaranteed loan.

Section 603 would amend the statutory definition of "income" and exclude VA benefits for both service- and nonservice-connected disabilities in determining eligibility for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program, but it would include the VA benefits when calculating adjusted income to determine rent levels. The section would also amend current law to state that the same method of determining income and adjusted income shall apply to HUD-VASH voucher holders applying to live in housing funded through other types of housing assistance. The section would also exclude VA benefits in determining eligibility for future HUD-assisted rental housing constructed on VA department property.

Section 602 is identical to Section 603 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 701 would require the HUD Secretary to testify on specified topics on an annual basis before the authorizing committees. This section would also require annual testimony from the president of Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing Commissioner, the Administrator of the RHS, the Executive Director of the Loan Guaranty Service of VA, and the FHFA Director. The section also requires the Mortgagee Review Board, within FHA, to submit its annual report to Congress, in addition to the HUD Secretary.

Section 701 would require the HUD Secretary to testify on specified topics on an annual basis before the authorizing committees.

The sections in the Senate and House bills both require annual testimony from the HUD Secretary on the same list of topics. The Senate bill, unlike the House bill, would additionally testimony the president of Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing Commissioner, the administrator of the RHS, the executive director of the Loan Guaranty Service of VA, and the FHFA director. The Senate bill would also, unlike the House bill, require the Mortgagee Review Board to submit its annual report to Congress.

Section 702 would require monthly reports on the MMIF capital ratio and require the HUD Secretary to notify Congress as soon as practicable if the capital ratio falls below its required level of 2%. This section would also require additional reporting to Congress from FHA regarding first-time homebuyers.

Section 702 would require monthly reports on the MMIF capital ratio and require the HUD Secretary to notify Congress as soon as practicable if the capital ratio falls below its required level of 2%.

The Senate and House bills include identical reporting requirements regarding the MMIF capital ratio. The Senate bill, unlike the House bill, would additionally require reporting regarding first-time homebuyers.

Section 703 would direct the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) to release a National Strategic Plan to End Homelessness within 12 months of enactment and to report annually thereafter on modifications to the plan and the reasons for modifications. It would also add "testifying annually before Congress" to the duties of USICH.

Section 703 is similar to Section 703 of the Senate bill, though would only require annual testimony "if requested."

The House bill, unlike the Senate bill, would only require annual testimony "if requested." The sections in the Senate and House bills also have drafting differences. The proposals are otherwise the same.

Section 704 would require the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the FHA Commissioner, and the FHFA Director to implement and maintain requirements that creditors of federally backed mortgage loans have a review and resolution procedure for consumers who submit requests for appraised value reconsiderations. This section would also require GAO to report on the feasibility of establishing a public appraisal database.

Section 704 is substantively the same as Section 704 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 801 would direct the HUD, USDA, and VA Secretaries to enter into an agreement to share data for the purpose of facilitating evidence-based policymaking. This section would also direct the three agencies to submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, to the authorizing committees describing (1) opportunities for collaboration, (2) federal laws and regulations that adversely affect the availability and affordability of new construction of federally assisted housing, and (3) recommendations for Congress regarding those laws and regulations. The report would first be required to be published for comment in the Federal Register.

Section 801 is substantively the same as Section 801 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

Section 802 would require HUD and USDA to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to review and potentially revise the environmental review process and requirements across the two agencies and to explore the feasibility of joint physical inspections for properties assisted by both agencies.

Section 802 is substantively the same as Section 802 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

Section 803 would require HUD to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress, not later than one year after the date of enactment, of work requirement policies previously implemented by existing Moving To Work agencies, to the extent sufficient information would be available and it would not negatively impact low-income families.

Section 803 is identical to Section 803 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 804 would require GAO to conduct studies and submit reports to Congress regarding several topics: workforce housing, housing for persons who are elderly or disabled, proximity of housing to superfund sites, and residential heirs' property.

Section 804 is substantively the same as Section 804 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills have drafting differences, but are otherwise the same.

NA

Section 805 would require a PHA to notify HUD if it is under a federal monitor, the start and scheduled end date of the monitor, and the monitor's identity. This section would also require any receiver or federal monitor overseeing a PHA to provide an annual written report to the authorizing committees, and to promptly furnish additional information as requested by the committees. The section would also require the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) to respond within 180 days to any written request by the authorizing committees seeking analysis related to PHAs under receiverships or federal monitors.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

NA

Section 901 would exempt custodial deposits from being considered a brokered deposit for well-capitalized insured depository institutions that meet certain conditions. This section would also restrict an institution that is not well capitalized from offering interest rates on custodial deposits that "significantly" exceed designated market rates.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 902 would increase the amount of reciprocal deposits that are exempted from the restrictions on brokered deposits. This section would also change who qualifies for this exemption to be based on the bank's supervisory rating, and would require a study and report to Congress from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Federal Reserve regarding reciprocal deposits.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 903 would increase the asset threshold at which banks are subject to more frequent full-scope examinations from $3 billion to $6 billion.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 904 would reduce the mandatory meeting frequency for boards of directors of well-capitalized credit unions that have existed for more than five years.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 905 would expand the GAO review requirements for the systemic risk exception to the least costly resolution (LCR) option for banks taken into receivership by the FDIC. This section would also require reports from the primary federal regulator of a failed institution.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 906 would create an exception to the LCR option to avoid the acquisition of a failing bank by a "global systemically important bank" (G-SIB).

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 907 would narrow the existing exceptions to the concentration limits pertinent to bank acquisitions, including as an LCR option. The section would also require any agency that waives the concentration limit to submit a report to Congress justifying the waiver and describing the alternative bids and why they were not chosen. The section would also prohibit the FDIC from considering bids that would violate these limits.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 908 would require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program whereby large depository institutions could serve as mentors to "small or rural depository institutions," as defined in the section.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 909 would establish a requirement for regulators to review and streamline the application process for new banks. This section would also require bank regulators to report to Congress on how banks raise capital and to consult with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about how SEC requirements may restrict capital access. This section would also require the federal banking agencies to assign a caseworker to new banks to be the point of contact between the bank and its regulator.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 910 would create a pilot program allowing for a two-year phase in for qualifying banks to meet capital requirements upon being chartered. This section would also require a study of the pilot program and a report to Congress regarding new bank formation.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 911 would require the federal banking agencies to jointly issue a report regarding depository institutions that serve rural areas. This section would also require the National Credit Union Administration to issue a report regarding credit unions and de novo credit unions.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

NA

Section 912 would reduce the total amount of discretionary surplus funds that may be held at Federal Reserve Banks by $115 million to $6.71 billion, effective September 30, 2035.

There is no corresponding section in the Senate bill.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 901 would ban large institutional investors (those with investment control of at least 350 single-family homes in the aggregate) from purchasing or otherwise acquiring additional one- or two-unit single-family homes. Violations would be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the greater of $1 million or three times the purchase price of the property. Revenue from penalties would be used as additional funding for homeownership activities under the HOME program.

This section includes several exceptions to the prohibition. It would exempt new housing for sale, build-to-rent housing, and certain renovate-to-rent housing from the prohibition, provided that such housing is disposed to an individual homebuyer within seven years of acquisition by an institutional investor (unless no offer to purchase is made within 60 days of advertising the home for sale). This section would also exempt housing pursuant to certain homeownership programs, housing acquired to satisfy debts or foreclosure, transactions between investors of homes owned prior to enactment of this section or through an exempted purchase (including as part of a restructuring or reorganization), housing purchased from an investor not covered under this section within two years of the effective date, and homes for senior communities.

This section would also allow Treasury to issue regulations, require a GAO report regarding institutional investor ownership of housing, and require a HUD report regarding aspects of the implementation of this section. The prohibition, disposal requirement, and enforcement provisions would take effect 180 days after enactment, and would be repealed 15 years after the effective date.

Section 1001 is similar to Section 901 of the Senate bill, with some substantive differences. The section does not include the provision requiring disposal of certain excepted purchases to individual homebuyers within seven years of acquisition, and it amends the description of build-to-rent properties that are excepted from the prohibition. This section would also direct HUD to establish a Renter Outreach Resource consisting of a toll-free number and a public website to assist renters of residential properties owned by a large institutional investor in reporting disputes. The House bill specifies that the Treasury Secretary (or the Attorney General, at the request of the Treasury Secretary) may bring an action against a large institutional investor that violates this section for a civil penalty of not more than the greater of $1 million or three times the purchase price of the property; the Senate bill states that large institutional investors that violate this section are subject to such penalties, subject to enforcement by the Treasury Secretary (without the language about bringing an action against such investor). The House bill also excludes language included in the Senate bill related to allowing Treasury to further clarify the application of certain terms through regulation.

The Senate bill would require certain excepted purchases be disposed to an individual homebuyer with seven years of acquisition by an institutional investor; the House bill would not. The House bill would establish a Renter Outreach Resource; the Senate bill would not. The House and Senate bills also have different definitions of "build-to-rent program," provide different regulatory instructions to Treasury, have differences in enforcement language, and have other drafting differences.

The proposals are otherwise the same.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 1001 would prohibit the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or a Federal reserve bank, from issuing or creating a central bank digital currency (or a substantially similar digital asset) through December 31, 2030.

Section 1101 is similar to Section 1001 of the Senate bill, though would also explicitly not allow the issuance of a central bank digital currency absent authorization by an act of Congress.

The House bill includes a rule of construction, not present in the Senate bill, stating that nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the Federal Reserve to issue a central bank digital currency absent authorization by an act of Congress.

The provisions are otherwise the same.

Senate Bill
(approved by the Senate in March 2026)

House Bill
(approved by the House in May 2026)

Notes

Section 1101 states that if any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act, and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Section 1201 is identical to Section 1101 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.

Section 1102 states that no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act or any amendment made by this act.

Section 1202 is identical to Section 1102 of the Senate bill.

The sections in the Senate and House bills are identical.