Foster Youth Postsecondary Education Access and Success Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7463

Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Foster Youth Postsecondary Education Access and Success Act

HR. 7463, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$76,450 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 383-385 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 555.

May 6, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Foster Youth Postsecondary Education Access and Success Act, HR 7463, is a bill that seeks to increase the maximum education and training voucher amount for foster youth pursuing postsecondary education. The main purpose of this bill is to provide greater support for foster youth in accessing higher education, with the objective of improving their socio-economic outcomes.

The key provisions of this bill include increasing the maximum education and training voucher amount from $5,000 to $12,000, providing guidance for states on implementing these changes, and improving accessibility and awareness of education and training vouchers among eligible youth. These changes aim to address the existing barriers that foster youth face in accessing higher education, such as limited financial resources and lack of support.

The affected parties and stakeholders include foster youth, states, and jurisdictions receiving allotments under section 477(c) of the Social Security Act. The potential impact of this bill is significant, with an estimated increase of $7,000 per voucher recipient. However, from a wealth and power perspective, this bill may be seen as a minor adjustment to the existing social welfare system, with limited implications for my business interests.

As a self-serving billionaire, I view this bill as a negligible threat to my empire, but it does present an opportunity for consolidation and deregulation in the education sector. The increased voucher amount could lead to more privatization of education services, which could benefit companies like mine that operate in this space. However, the overall impact on my wealth and influence is likely to be minimal, with projected changes in the range of 0.01-0.1% of my total assets.

In conclusion, while HR 7463 may have some benefits for foster youth, its implications for my business interests are limited. I will continue to monitor this bill and assess its potential impact on my wealth and influence, but for now, it is not a significant concern. The inefficient democratic process has once again produced a bill that fails to address the real issues of wealth and power consolidation, but it does provide a minor opportunity for growth in the education sector.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$76,450

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$39,600

Committees

Individuals

$36,850

No PAC contributions found

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

2 transactions

$6,600

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

3 transactions

$6,200

ONEIDA NATION

2 transactions

$5,300

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,900

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$2,000

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

2 transactions

$1,000

No committee contributions found

WU, SALLY

1 transaction

$3,650

KALDAS, MAHER HALIM

1 transaction

$3,500

SU, EVELYN

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUN, JANET

1 transaction

$3,300

CANDELARIO, JURY

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEN, SHAWN S

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEN, XIN

1 transaction

$3,300

CHENG, DUNSON

1 transaction

$3,300

DE LLAMAS, LLOYD R

1 transaction

$3,300

DU, XIAOJUAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ENOMOTO, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

ID: M001224

Top Contributors

PELTIER, PATRICK

PELTIER AUTO GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualTYLER, TX

$9,900

Jan 31, 2024

PELTIER, PATRICK

IndividualTYLER, TX

$6,600

Feb 22, 2024

MARSHALL, MATTHEW

DRAKE • REAL ESTATE

IndividualTYLER, TX

$6,600

Aug 22, 2024

MARSHALL, MATTHEW

DRAKE • REAL ESTATE

IndividualTYLER, TX

$6,600

Aug 22, 2024

ANDERSON, RICHARD M.

PAFFORD EMS • 911 PROFESSIONAL

IndividualMARSHALL, TX

$5,000

Apr 15, 2024

LEATHERWOOD, HARRY

SELF • SELF

IndividualTYLER, TX

$5,000

Sep 23, 2024

STOVALL, SCOTT

IndividualTROUP, TX

$3,300

Jan 18, 2024

PELTIER, MIKAH ANN

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER • COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER

IndividualTYLER, TX

$3,300

Jan 31, 2024

PELTIER, PATRICK

PELTIER AUTO GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualTYLER, TX

$3,300

Jan 31, 2024

STEVENSON, DAVID L

CUSTOM COMMODITIES TRANSPORT • OWNER

IndividualDIANA, TX

$3,300

Feb 1, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 61 nodes and 33 connections (75 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $99,550

Top Donors - Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

12 Orgs11 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
Section 2 increases the maximum education and training voucher amount, which may reduce demand for for-profit education services, as foster youth may opt for more affordable alternatives.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7463 focuses on expanding postsecondary education support for foster youth through increased vouchers and streamlined access, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes K–12 school choice via tax credits, state opt-outs from federal programs, and higher education accreditation reform—particularly targeting DEI policies and federal overreach. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address school choice, accreditation, or federal program opt-outs."

Key themes:education accesspostsecondary support

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 353-355AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands federal support for foster youth education through increased funding and guidance, which contrasts with Project 2025's goal of reducing federal oversight and block-granting education funds to states with fewer strings. While both address postsecondary opportunity, the bill increases federal involvement rather than devolving it."

Key themes:postsecondary educationstate implementationeducation accessfederal funding

— 320 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The future of education freedom and reform in the states is bright and will shine brighter when regulations and red tape from Washington are eliminated. Federal money is inevitably accompanied by rules and regulations that keep the influx of funds from having much, if any, impact on student outcomes. It raises the cost of education without raising student achievement. To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block- granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats. Eventually, policymaking and funding should take place at the state and local level, closest to the affected families. Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity. That has not, however, been the track record of federal higher education policy or of the many institutions of higher education that are hostile to free expression, open academic inquiry, and American exceptionalism. Federal post- secondary policy should be more than massive, inefficient, and open-ended subsidies to “traditional” colleges and universities. It should be rebalanced to focus far more on bolstering the workforce skills of Americans who have no interest in pursuing a four- year academic degree. It should reflect a fuller picture of learning after high school, placing apprenticeship programs of all types and career and technical education on an even playing field with degrees from colleges and universities. Rather than continuing to buttress a higher education establishment captured by woke “diversicrats” and a de facto monopoly enforced by the federal accreditation cartel, federal postsecondary education policy should prepare students for jobs in the dynamic economy, nurture institutional diversity, and expose schools to greater market forces.1 OVERVIEW For most of our history, the federal government played a minor role in education. Then, over a 14-month period beginning in 1964, Congress planted the seeds for what would become the U.S. Department of Education (ED or the department). In July of that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after Congress reached a consensus that the mistreatment of black Americans was no longer tolerable and merited a federal response. In the case of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)2 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA),3 Congress sought to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students by providing additional compensatory funding for low-income children and lower-income college students. Spending on ESEA and the HEA—part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty”—grew exponentially in the years that followed. By Fiscal Year 2022, ESEA programs received $27.7 billion in appropriations, in addition to $190 billion that came — 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt concern education policy, but the bill focuses on expanding postsecondary support for foster youth while the Project 2025 section centers on parental rights, FERPA/PPRA enforcement, gender ideology, and school choice. The overlap is limited to general education themes."

Key themes:educationstudent supportfederal funding

— 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and — 346 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates. l The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls. School officials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employ- ees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a different “gender” while at school—without notifying parents. In California, New Jersey, and certain districts in Kansas and elsewhere, educators are prohibited from informing parents about children’s confusion over their sex if the children do not want their parents to know. Such policies allow schools to drive a wedge between parents and children. The next Administration should work with Congress to provide an example to state lawmakers by requiring K–12 districts under federal jurisdiction, including Wash- ington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools, with legislation stating that: l No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public education employee or contractor shall use a pronoun in addressing a student that is different from that student’s biological sex without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions. State lawmakers should use this model and adopt similar provisions for public schools within their borders. Federal lawmakers should not allow public school employees to keep secrets about a child from that child’s parents. Advance School Choice Policies The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher program providing scholarships to children from low-income families living in the nation’s capital to attend a private school of choice, is capped at $20 million annually and limited to

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses foster youth education vouchers, while the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on housing market reforms, regulatory streamlining, and DEI policies, with no substantive overlap."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7463 focuses on expanding postsecondary education support for foster youth through increased vouchers and streamlined access, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 HUD policy objectives concerning repealing AFFH, restricting noncitizen eligibility in federally assisted housing, ending Housing First, or modifying mortgage insurance and homebuyer programs."

— 509 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration30 and any other uses of special-purpose credit authorities to further equity.31 4. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.32 l The Office of the Secretary should recommence proposed regulation put forward under the Trump Administration that would prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.33 HUD’s statutory obligations include providing housing for American citizens who are in need. HUD reforms must also ensure alignment with reforms implemented by other federal agencies where immigration status impacts public programs, certainly to include any reforms in the Public Charge regulatory framework administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Local welfare organizations, not the federal government, should step up to provide welfare for the housing of noncitizens. l The Office of the Secretary should execute regulatory and subregulatory guidance actions, across HUD programs and applicable to all relevant stakeholders, that would restrict program eligibility when admission would threaten the protection of the life and health of individuals and fail to encourage upward mobility and economic advancement through household self-sufficiency. Where admissible in regulatory action, HUD should implement reforms reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs,34 strengthen work and work-readiness requirements,35 implement maximum term limits for residents in PBRA and TBRA programs,36 and end Housing First37 policies so that the department prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.38 Notwithstanding administrative reforms, Congress should enact legislation that protects life and eliminates provisions in federal housing and welfare benefits policies that discourage work, marriage, and meaningful paths to upward economic mobility. l The AS or PDAS for the Office of Policy Development and Research should suspend all external research and evaluation grants in the Office of Policy Development and Research and end or realign to another office any functions that are not involved in the collection and use of data and survey administration functions and do not facilitate the execution of regulatory impact analysis studies. — 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Chu, Judy

Investing in Main Street Act of 2025

119/hr/754

Foster Youth Postsecondary Education Access and Success Act